Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 4 May.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 4 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

BSE

Mr. Nigel Beard: What has been the cost to the Exchequer of the BSE crisis. [117722]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): BSE has been a national tragedy. To date, 53 people have lost their lives to new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The Government have put in place powerful public protection measures, which have incurred costs on the livestock industry and on the Exchequer.
Total expenditure on the BSE crisis is estimated to be £4.2 billion to the end of the financial year 2001–02. Of that amount, the other European Union member states contribute about £487 million—11.6 per cent. of the total cost—when the Fontainebleau mechanism is taken into account. Therefore, the net cost of the crisis to the Exchequer to the end of the next financial year is about £3.7 billion.

Mr. Beard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the £4 billion, the 53 people who have died, the uncountable cost and the plight that the farming industry has been left in, are the dimensions of a major national disaster, which is an indictment of the Government who presided over it? Does he further agree that the best way to safeguard against such disasters is to have a constant science-based review of food standards? Is it not therefore amazing that, throughout the 1990s,

the research and development budget for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food declined by about 30 per cent? Can he give the House an assurance that the Ministry is better prepared for any such emergency?

Mr. Brown: The creation of the Food Standards Agency will go a long way towards providing the British public with the protection that they have a right to expect. It is right that public money be expended in that way to protect the public on the precautionary principle. Those measures are very expensive, but the tragedy against which we are protecting the public cannot be calculated in money alone. Our hearts go out to those people and their families—those who have lost their lives and the families that remain.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I think that the Minister accepts that there has been a huge on-cost to the pig industry as a result of the BSE regulations. Why then do his Government refuse to compensate the industry for it? Does he appreciate how serious the position is? The industry has been losing money for two years. The help that, we understand, is available from the European Community has not been forthcoming because of Government inaction.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The constraints that were put on the use of meat and bonemeal in the pig industry were imposed in 1996 under the Government whom he supported. Had the Government then decided to approach the European Union with a view to covering some of those costs, the Commission may have been sympathetic, but we certainly could not make such an approach now because the Commission has said that economic considerations are the only reason offered for changing the position in the United Kingdom. When I had an exchange with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who speaks for the Opposition, he made it clear that the Opposition were seeking such a change for economic reasons, which is precisely why the Commission will not allow it.
The Commission is willing to explore with us a restructuring proposal, which costs public money. We are taking that forward following the Prime Minister's summit, so there is support for the industry, which was not available under the previous Government, but we must explore the matter with the Commission. I hope to have more to say in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Should not my right hon. Friend be much tougher in laying the blame where it belongs—on the former Government—for what has been one of the most appalling tragedies? There has been not only the £4 billion cost, but the great tragedy for the families involved as a result of the new variant CJD cases, and the tragic implications for farmers and those in the meat industry who have additional costs that cannot be fully estimated. Will he give a full assurance that the Government will always put public safety first? Is that not why we have created the Food Standards Agency, which will be vital in the years ahead?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the FSA. The Government's first priority is to protect the public. All other considerations, although


important, are secondary to that. As for where responsibility lies, I should like to withhold my judgment until we see the report of the BSE inquiry committee.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: How closely is the Minister keeping up with the research work by Professor Ebringer of London on that matter? Does he accept that, if Professor Ebringer's theories are right—he questions the prion theory—it would have had a significant impact on lowering the cost of handling the BSE crisis? Can he give any indication of how that research is going?

Mr. Brown: There are several alternative theories in the scientific community to the prion protein theory. I try to keep as close as I can to the scientific debate and to question the scientific advisers who make recommendations on Government policy. Although there is no absolute certainty in the matter—I guess that there never can be in matters of scientific debate—nevertheless, I find the prion protein theory pretty compelling.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it needs saying over and over again that that £4.2 billion and the loss of life involved is down to the previous Tory Government? It is a savage indictment of what they did. They ought to be made to pay—I do not know whether Lord Belize of Sleaze has any money. If they had been in local government, not only would they have been kicked out of office, they would have been made to find that money. Their silence explains everything.

Mr. Brown: I think that the Conservative party has a cheek offering advice to the Government on the issue given that it presided over the circumstances that brought about this national tragedy. However, I also think that we should wait until we see the report of the BSE inquiry before coming to a conclusion.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister recognise that Europe is threatened with a new BSE crisis that results directly from the refusal of the French Government to acknowledge the extent of under-reporting of BSE in France? In view of the growing evidence of that under-reporting, why are Labour Ministers so reluctant to protect British consumers against potentially dangerous imports from France, such as gelatine?

Mr. Brown: That is all complete nonsense. The fact is that we do not allow meat products over 30 months to be imported into this country. We parallel in our imports the powerful public protection measures that we have in place in the United Kingdom. Trying to get up a food scare against the French is no substitute for Conservative Front Benchers apologising for the food crisis over which they presided when they were the Government.

Pet Travel Scheme

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What action he has taken to ensure that pet owners are aware of the operation of the pet travel scheme. [117723]

Mr. David Crausby: How many animals have entered the United Kingdom under the pet travel scheme. [117731]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Pet owners have been informed about the pet travel scheme—PETS—in a variety of ways, including advertisements in the daily press. Every veterinary practice has been sent information, including factsheets and posters. Information and advice are available also from the PETS helpline or by e-mail or fax, or from the PETS website which receives more than 500,000 hits each month. In the first six weeks of the pet travel scheme pilot, 857 dogs and cats have entered the UK without going into quarantine.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and assure her that many of my constituents who campaigned for sensible reform are delighted that it is now in operation. Could she say what action the Government are taking to ensure that publicity clearly informs pet owners of the requirement for pets to pass strict health standards to ensure that Britain remains free of rabies, and to avoid any disappointment and upset to pet owners?

Ms Quin: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. The purpose of the pet travel scheme is in no way to relax our controls on rabies or other diseases, but simply to reform so that the misery of quarantine is ended. I am glad that that objective has been widely recognised and approved. The publicity measures for the scheme seem to be working. Surveys that we have conducted show that there is both a high level of awareness of the scheme among pet owners, and the necessary level of awareness among veterinarians both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Will she confirm that the pet travel scheme has been successfully established much earlier than anyone could possibly have hoped for, and that it has been a godsend to numerous pet owners who no longer need to quarantine their pets? Is she aware that the scheme will mean a great deal to hundreds, and eventually thousands, of people—especially those who serve in our armed forces—not to mention their pets?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right, and I am delighted that the Government have delivered on our commitment so early by introducing the pilot scheme. Obviously, it will be important to examine the effects of the scheme before we introduce the main scheme that will follow.

Mr. Roger Gale: As one who supports and has campaigned for such a scheme, I am aware that, when it was introduced, concern was expressed about the lack of information available to veterinary surgeons and particularly about information relating to veterinary services in France that would be required for people returning to the UK. Can the Minister satisfy the House that veterinary surgeons can provide advice to travellers so that, with the holiday season starting, the many people who wish to bring animals back to the UK do not find that they cannot obtain the veterinary services that they require? In addition, when will the British forces serving in the rabies-free island of Cyprus be included in the scheme?

Ms Quin: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general comments, and I know that he has been in contact with my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, who leads for the Ministry on the issue in another place. We are in touch with the French vets, whose organisation rejoices in the acronym of SNVEL. We are ensuring that they have the requisite information on necessary certification. We have been in contact—via the French authorities—with French local government, and I am glad that French town halls are making the information available. We hope that problems can be averted in time for the summer season.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister has rightly emphasised that this is only a pilot scheme. Will she confirm that the advance to a full-blown scheme is by no means inevitable, and that it would happen only if the Minister were absolutely satisfied that every condition of the pilot scheme had been fulfilled? Will she assure us that she and her officials will want to be satisfied that facilities overseas in all countries from which animals might be brought to this country fully comply with the requirements set out when the pilot scheme was set up?

Ms Quin: I sense that the right hon. Gentleman is less enthusiastic about the scheme than some of his Conservative colleagues. Not for the first time, he finds himself in an odd position regarding a policy issue. We believe that the scheme is worth while, and the early indications are that it is capable of working well and, as I said earlier, ending the misery of quarantine. However, I assure him that the scheme is being monitored carefully, and if we are to extend it to other countries, we must be sure that it works well.
In response to a point raised by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) which I did not answer, we are keen to ensure that other rabies-free areas, such as the island of Cyprus, can be included in the scheme. I cannot give a 100 per cent. guarantee today, but it is likely to be included in the main scheme.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: This is an excellent scheme but—to return to the question put by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—will someone check during the monitoring process on what is happening in northern France in terms of the prices being charged by veterinaries to bring into order the documentation required for the return of animals to the UK, as there is a danger of exploitation in that market?

Ms Quin: I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my noble Friend Baroness Hayman. We will pursue the issues with the French veterinary authorities. We do not want any financial exploitation as a result of the scheme. However, he will be well aware that the costs of quarantine were enormous and that in addition to the benefits of the scheme generally, it helps to reduce costs considerably.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Andrew George: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the European Union on the reform of the common fisheries policy. [117725]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I have regular discussions with my counterparts in the European Union about reform of the CFP and other fisheries matters. This week, for example, I visited the Netherlands for cordial and constructive discussions with my Dutch opposite number.

Mr. George: Does the Minister agree that, if devolved regional management of fishing effort is to succeed, as we want it to, it must proceed on the basis of trust, particularly between the Ministry and the industry? How can he explain the situation whereby the Belgians have been given 200 tonnes of UK plaice and sole quota to persuade them to stay out of the Irish sea closed area? Had not he assured the industry that there was a gentlemen's agreement?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's point about relations between member states is important. It is not unusual for member states to help each other with quota management. It is certainly true that we made an allocation to Belgium, in response to the good will and support that we have received from Belgium, which removed its beam trawlers from the closed area—which it did not have to do—and thereby influenced the Dutch and the Irish Republic. Our own beam trawlers were the first to volunteer to come out.
The Belgian Government have assisted us with quota in the past. They helped us to keep the channel cod fishery open for our inshore fleet in 1998 and they helped us to clear some end-of-year overfishes that would otherwise have meant that our quota would have been deducted. That is what European co-operation is all about. The Belgians have removed their vessels from the area and no British fisherman will suffer as a consequence, because we had an undershoot in our quota. I can guarantee that no one in Britain will lose quota as a result of the deal.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: There is not a cat in hell's chance of the French and Spanish Governments agreeing to the comprehensive reform of the common fisheries policy. If I were a French or Spanish Member of Parliament, I would argue against any reform of the CFP. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend must continue to argue the case for both regional management and the abolition of industrial fishing. Both subjects should be on the agenda of the next meeting of the British-Irish Council, notwithstanding the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Our fishing associations have had talks with the French and Spanish on regional management. Unfortunately, some in our industry and in the Conservative party give the impression that when we talk about regional management we are talking about renationalising the common fisheries policy. That is not possible without withdrawing from the European Union. If that is Conservative Members' policy, they should say so. I believe that, through negotiation and co-operation, we can move towards a less centralised CFP, more regional management and more involvement of local fishing industries in managing local fisheries.

Mr. William Thompson: We have heard about the 200 tonnes that were allowed to Belgium. Is there a similar arrangement with the Dutch and the Irish and, if so, for what tonnage?

Mr. Morley: No, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no arrangement with the Dutch and the Irish. This is an issue of member states assisting each other. It is a two-way process, and we have benefited from assistance from other countries, including Belgium. We have shown good will in recognition of the good will that has been shown to us.

Mrs. Joan Humble: My hon. Friend is well aware that the Fleetwood inshore fleet is very concerned about the closure of the Irish sea and the allocation of quota to the Belgians. The fishermen feel especially angry because they were not properly consulted. In his debates with his colleagues about the reform of the CFP, will he ensure that the fishermen's voice is heard and that their sensible suggestions about fish management are taken into account? Simply relying on quotas has clearly not worked.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has campaigned strongly on behalf of her fishermen and I recognise the problems. That is why we are allowing the inshore fishermen to fish with our scientists on board so that they can examine the case for continuing to fish without impacting on cod. On quotas, we have got the beam trawlers out of the cod closed area, which her fishermen were keen to see. When it comes to the allocation of quotas, it would be helpful if the industry could speak with one voice, because that is not the case at present.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Following the question from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), in a recent written answer to me the Minister confirmed that a voluntary agreement had been reached with the Belgians to withdraw their flat fish beam trawlers from the cod protection zone in the north Irish sea. It has now come to light that that was no ordinary voluntary agreement but involved a "bung"—as Fishing News described it—of extra quota of 190 tonnes of North sea plaice and 10 tonnes of valuable Dover sole from the English channel. What authority does the Minister have for dishing out extra quota in that way, without consultation and in secret? Will he reiterate his guarantee that no UK fishermen will lose out as a result of that bribe to the Belgians? How does he reconcile those actions with his shameful treatment of the Fleetwood inshore fishermen who have had no income for two months because of his failure to pay them rightful compensation?

Mr. Morley: When the Belgians helped us to keep the channel cod fishery open, we did not describe that as a bung or a bribe. I repeat that we have a voluntary agreement with them. We have recognised the good will that has been shown to us by Belgium and other countries. The fish come from an undershoot. The allocation of both plaice and sole in the North sea for this year is more than was caught by our fishermen last year. I give a guarantee in relation to plaice that no British fisherman will suffer as a result of that arrangement.

Dairy Farmers

Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the prospects for dairy farmers. [117727]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Dairy farmers will have welcomed the announcement on 30 March, the more so given current difficulties in the sector. They will receive some £22 million in agrimonetary compensation, which is the maximum we could draw down. We have lifted dairy hygiene charges at a cost of a further £1 million a year, and dairy farmers will also benefit from the changes we are seeking to the over-30-months scheme weight limit.
Other positive factors in the sector are the approach taken by the successors to Milk Marque and the forthcoming generic promotion of milk that will be undertaken by the Milk Development Council.

Mr. Paterson: Ten to 12 dairy farmers in my area apply to get out of farming every week by trying to sell their quotas. That is partly because of the Government's bungled negotiation with the European Union, which deprived my farmers of a market for bull calves in France, where they are worth £150, so that they have to send them to hunt kennels for humane slaughter for nothing. What will the Government do to take responsibility for that, having arbitrarily deprived Britain's farmers of a viable market for bull calves?

Mr. Brown: That is complete nonsense. Instead of misrepresenting the position in the House of Commons, the hon. Gentleman should explain to his constituents what the Government are doing to help the dairy sector.

Mr. David Drew: One cannot underestimate the problems in the dairy industry with ridiculously low pricing. That is a legacy of crazy economics and, dare I say, an absurd structure. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to encourage greater collaboration and co-operation in the sector so that we can have an effective dairy industry that can achieve things locally and internationally?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to the right point. The 1992 changes in the structure of the dairy industry introduced by the then Conservative Government led to an adversarial casting of the supply chain in the industry, which haunts it to this day. I do what I can to draw the supply chain together, because the ultimate answer to dairy farmers' problems lies in the market place and in securing a premium from the working of the supply chain.

Mr. Colin Breed: Can the Minister clarify the situation as regards his discussions with the European Union on the over-30-months scheme? Is he negotiating for removal or raising of the weight limit? Is that matter on the agenda for tomorrow's beef management committee meeting?

Mr. Brown: Discussions are under way with Commission officials. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman which management committee will deal with the changes that we are seeking as that is still a matter for discussion. The costs of the change that the Government propose will


fall wholly on the domestic taxpayer, so no EU money is involved. As to whether the Government's proposal is to lift the limit or increase it, it is to lift it.

Mr. Huw Edwards: May I welcome the announcement of the agrimonetary compensation—the £22 million that has been secured? It is £22 million that was never secured by the previous Conservative Government. The removal of the dairy hygiene charges will also be welcomed in my constituency. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to work with the supermarket chains to ensure a fair market for farmers and to ensure a more realistic level for the price of milk so that some farmers who are facing great difficulties can have a secure future?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend summarises the position well. He is right to point out that the previous Conservative Government never paid out a penny in agrimonetary compensation, although the Conservatives have called on me to pay it out. For the avoidance of doubt, with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I should make it clear to those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that when I said that the Government intended to lift the weight limit I meant that they intend to remove it, as I can see that they are discussing the matter.

Mr. David Curry: Potentially far more important than the immediate amount of cash made available in the package of a fortnight ago is the possible change in attitude towards the way in which the regulatory regimes and the costs are applied. With that in view, have the Government now abandoned the policy of full economic cost recovery for inspections and the way in which the regime is applied to farmers?

Mr. Brown: As the right hon. Gentleman will know because he follows these matters closely, the Government are carrying a considerable amount in charges that could have fallen on the industry—not only the charges that I mentioned in an earlier answer, but the cattle passport charges, which are carried by the taxpayer and not the industry.

Charlotte Atkins: Is the Minister aware of how pleased my dairy farmers in Staffordshire are that the area has been identified as a hot spot for the badger culling trials? He will be aware that the area has been plagued by a massive increase in bovine tuberculosis, which has hit many dairy farmers hard. Can he say whether the Minister responsible in the other place will soon visit my constituency to enter discussions with dairy farmers?

Mr. Brown: The Government remain committed to the Krebs-Bourne trials. We are determined to see them through. I am pleased that we have been able to announce the additional matched triplets, which will be a reassurance to dairy farmers. The Government are determined to do everything that they can to combat bovine TB. I am sorry that I cannot say anything about the movements of the Minister in another place, but I hope that my hon. Friend will receive a ministerial visit soon.

Mr. James Paice: How can the Minister talk about dairy farmers getting more out

of the marketplace after the Government's incompetent handling of the Milk Marque issue, which has caused the fragmentation of farmers' market position? Does he accept that the waiving of the hygiene charges that he trumpeted will equal £30 or £40 to the average dairy farmer, which is not exactly a life saver? Does he not understand the crisis in the industry? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, dairy farmers are going out of business in droves. Is it not clear that soon the only source of bullshit will be Downing street? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That comment seemed to me and to the House to be unwarranted. It is unacceptable to me and from what I see it is also unacceptable to hon. Members. I hope that we shall employ higher standards in our exchanges and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw those remarks.

Mr. Paice: At your behest, Madam Speaker, of course I withdraw that particular word. I will replace it with "bovine verbal excrement" from Downing street.

Mr. Brown: I will not comment on the standards of parliamentary debate from the Conservative Front Bench, except to observe that its occupants have nothing to contribute to the debate but bad language.

Livestock Farming (Northumberland)

Mr. A. J. Beith: What recent assessment he has made of the state of livestock farming in Northumberland. [1177331

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We recognise the problems of the livestock industry in Northumberland and the rest of the country. We have acted to alleviate them. On 30 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced a substantial package of £200 million, the bulk of which was targeted at the livestock sector.

Mr. Beith: The summit measures were indeed welcomed, but does the Minister of State recognise that deeply indebted livestock farmers in Northumberland are still struggling, particularly with the problems of the high pound? Is that featuring in discussions among Ministers? Does the hon. Lady recognise that as soon as the livestock prices at the marts rise, Republic of Ireland stock comes in to undercut the United Kingdom trade? Does she also recognise that the dairy farming sector—what little we have left of it—is still in a very desperate position?

Ms Quin: The right hon. Gentleman is correct about the difficulties of the dairy sector. That is why it was an important focus of the farming summit that took place on 30 March. Besides the agrimonetary payments for dairy farmers that were announced, the hygiene charges and the over-30-months scheme limit were removed. Those points had been put strongly by dairy farmers in recent months, and the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that we responded to them.
The farming summit must be considered against the background of previous help that we have given the industry. Together with the food chain initiative, also


announced at the farming summit, there are many measures that should at least reassure dairy farmers that we are very focused on their situation.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: One of the things that the Minister can do to help Northumbrian livestock farmers is to revisit the extraordinarily complicated rules that surround the Agenda 2000 extensification scheme. This involves more than six farm visits a year and, what is worse, perpetuates the evil that farmers are raising beef for subsidy, not for meat quality.

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to complications in the scheme. However, in our contacts with the European Commission we have done a lot to try to bring about greater simplification. The Government have set up a review of regulatory burdens, and accepted the vast majority of the recommendations of the meat industry red tape working group. Some of them require further negotiations with the European Commission, which we are pursuing, but we are bringing in those which we are able to introduce domestically.

Pig Industry

Mr. David Tredinnick: What discussion he has had recently with representatives of the pig industry about pig farming; and if he will make a statement. [117737]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): On 30 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister attended the Prime Minister's meeting with leaders of the agriculture and food industries. As part of the action plan that came out of that meeting, the Government are offering pig producers £26 million this year to help them restructure their industry and restore long-term viability. We are working to provide further funding in future years. Our plans have been notified to the EU Commission to meet state aid rules.
We have also deferred implementation of integrated pollution prevention and control until 2007 for pig and poultry installations, and the pig industry has also benefited substantially from marketing grants under the agriculture developments scheme 1999.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the National Pig Association has written to me saying that the money falls far short of the twin objectives of reducing the impact of the BSE tax and returning the industry to profitability? Given what is going on at Stoke Golding in my constituency, where the Goslings have a very big farm of 40 sows which live in straw conditions that meet very high standards, does he understand that it is uncompetitiveness, caused by the higher standards in this country, that is causing so much difficulty? Will he stop illegal imports of products that do not meet the very high standards that we require?

Mr. Morley: My right hon. Friend the Minister has already outlined some of the action taken in relation to the pig industry. On labelling, the verification officer appointed by the Ministry has assisted in getting three retail chains to change their labelling to reflect more accurately the country of origin of meat.
I meet the chairman of the National Pig Association regularly. Although the association naturally wants us to go further on certain matters, I have seen correspondence in which it was very supportive and thanked the Government for introducing measures to help the industry.

Mr. Phil Hope: Farmers in my constituency very much welcome the additional money recently announced for the pig industry. Bernard Howard is a local pig farmer, and for the first time he has given us a pat on the back—in my constituency, that is a miracle. However, the BSE-related costs to the pig industry are a worry. Will my hon. Friend confirm that help with those costs would be illegal under European Commission rules, and that that is why the Government cannot help the pig industry in that way?
If I invited my right hon. Friend the Minister to my constituency, would he be prepared to meet farmers in Corby and east Northamptonshire, and in Kettering and Wellingborough too, who have severe problems? They would really welcome the opportunity to meet my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Morley: As my right hon. Friend has made clear, the previous Administration provided no assistance when BSE-related costs were introduced in 1996. Moreover, the present Opposition have made it clear that they want that support for economic reasons, even though providing it would be impossible as it would amount to illegal state aid. The pig industry is well aware of how difficult it has been to put together an assistance package while meeting the state aid rules. We have managed to put such a package together, and we have helped industry in a number of ways. My hon. Friend is right to say that most people in the pig industry recognise that the Government have done a great deal to assist them with their present problems.

Mr. James Gray: The £26 million package for the pig industry is derisory, although it is not nearly as bad as the one tenth of a penny per litre on offer to the milk industry. The Minister has said that the money is to be used for restructuring the pig industry. Will he explain what that means?

Mr. Morley: It is interesting that although Conservative Members are keen to call figures derisory, no money was forthcoming from the Conservative Government when there were similar problems in 1996. We have put forward a range of measures to help the pig industry in a number of ways. Restructuring is only part of the package, which includes assistance to help those who want to stay in the industry, so that they can become competitive and meet the demands made on them.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Ministers have so far failed to answer any of the questions that I tabled 10 days ago about the details of the action plan announced a fortnight ago. The Minister keeps boasting about the £26 million, but is not it the case that that money can be spent only on getting pig farmers out of business and on ensuring that the land that they use is not used for pig farming? Does the Minister understand that the pig industry needed measures to help to keep farmers in business while the price recovered? Will not the direct


consequence of what the Ministry has done be that more of the pigmeat consumed in this country comes from imports, much of which will be produced by farmers who fail to meet the standards required by law in Britain?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. The package has three elements. They have been published, and I understand, too, that the hon. Gentleman's written questions have been answered. One of the elements of the package will assist people staying in the industry in a number of ways. For example, pig farmers have benefited substantially from the agricultural development grants. We are helping the people who want to leave the industry, but we are also helping those who want to stay in, so that they can improve their businesses and make them successful.

Co-operative Working

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What steps he is taking to improve co-operative working across the agri-food chain. [117738]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government are working in many ways, including in partnership with the industry, to improve levels of co-operation across the food chain. This approach was evident at the recent agriculture summit, when the industry committed itself to developing a code of best practice on trading relationships.

Mr. Savidge: Does the Minister believe that the agreements reached at that summit, not only on the code of best practice but on the clear labelling of superior British produce, will be of vital assistance to the food industry in my area of the north-east of Scotland and throughout Britain?

Ms Quin: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right. Although it was important that at the summit there was a commitment to the code of practice, equally welcome was the boost given to better and more visible labelling by the National Farmers Union kitemark, which I hope will be successful. It seems that consumers are aware already that this is an important initiative, and the level of recognition of the scheme is already quite high.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

European Convention on Human Rights

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on United Kingdom compliance with the European convention on human rights in relation to legislation. [117752]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The United Kingdom ratified the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in 1951, and is bound in international law to respect and observe convention rights.
Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides for a statement of compatibility from Ministers introducing legislation into Parliament. That is already in force. It requires that when legislation is introduced in either House for a Second Reading, the Minister responsible for the legislation must make a written statement that he or she considers the Bill to be compatible with convention rights, or is unable to make the statement but wishes Parliament to proceed with the Bill anyway. It is primarily for the Minister who is responsible for a Bill to ensure that the provisions are compatible. On reaching a view on these matters, the Minister would act on the advice of his or her officials and legal advisers, and sometimes the Law Officers become involved.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is it not time that we revisited section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998? It is inadequate, and will lead to embarrassment for the United Kingdom and to work for the Law Officers, who will have to defend our statute book in the European Court and other courts. Did my hon. and learned Friend notice this week that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was unable to give a human rights compliance notice in relation to the Local Government Bill? On the advice of the Lord Chancellor, he is unable to explain why he is not able to give that notice. It is nonsense. Private Members' Bills and private Bills are passing through the House, and with them there is apparently no need for human rights compliance certification. Again, that is nonsense. When these measures reach the statute book, the Law Officers will sometimes have to defend the indefensible. We should recognise that we are being sloppy and that these issues should be taken up with expedition.

The Solicitor-General: We are taking the Act seriously, and the statements. We started with public Bills. However, I take my hon. Friend's argument. He raises a serious point about private Bills, for example. The concerns that he has expressed on previous occasions have been taken on board. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering them seriously. As for the Local Government Bill, Ministers will have to give an explanation to the House and in Committee in due course. They will have to explain why some measures within it are not compliant, and why most are.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Have the Government estimated the number of cases that will arise under the European convention when the new provisions come into force, the additional burden on the court system and the additional costs?

The Solicitor-General: An announcement was made yesterday, and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was given some figures. We have admitted from the outset that costs are involved in training and litigation. Initially, we expect that human rights problems will be raised in ordinary cases, and they will be dealt with in the ordinary way. We have anticipated additional costs, and there is no doubt that they will arise. We say that there are advantages in promoting a human rights culture. To take up the slogan that was used on one occasion by a leader of the Conservative party, "Rejoice, rejoice."

Fiona Mactaggart: To follow up the point about creating a human rights culture, does my hon. and


learned Friend believe that we are succeeding in doing that, or does he share my concern that discussion about the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 has focused on minor aspects of it that will cause complications rather than on the fact that we are giving legal rights to our citizens?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. Many misconceptions have been sown about this matter, and there has been much concentration on litigation, which is the issue that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised. We are trying to change the whole culture, initially in the public services, so that they will deal with matters in the right way, but more generally in the community.

Mr. John Burnett: As the House knows, the European convention on human rights already impacts on our law. I refer the Solicitor-General to the Starrs case, which has given rise to a significant rethink in the Lord Chancellor's Department, as was shown in a written answer given yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy). Although that case deals with judicial appointments, is the Solicitor-General satisfied that it does not impact in any way on appointments in his Department or on any person for whom he is accountable to the House?

The Solicitor-General: That particular case involved judicial appointments and quasi-judicial appointments. As yesterday's statement indicated, certain changes have been made. It is vital that we underline the independence of the judiciary, and that has been done. For example, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), the shadow Attorney-General, has by virtue of that statement become a recorder. He is no longer an assistant recorder, because assistant recorders have only short-term appointments.
Judicial independence is important, and it is also important that tribunals are seen to be independent. That brings me back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). Although individual cases and structures are important, it is more the culture of rights and responsibilities—I emphasise the word "responsibilities"—that we are attempting to promote by our legislation.

Mr. David Kidney: There is much speculation about the readiness of our legal system to cope with the implementation of convention rights in domestic law later this year. What assurance can my hon. and learned Friend give to the House about the state of readiness of Law Officers themselves and of those parts of the legal system, such as the Crown Prosecution Service, for which they are responsible?

The Solicitor-General: I hope that I am absolutely and completely ready. As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) suggested, the convention has been in force and been part of our law since 1951. It is nothing new. We constantly have to give advice on human rights matters. All that has happened is that the Human Rights Act has domesticated those rights, so that remedies can be sought in domestic courts.
My hon. Friend referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, and a great deal of training has taken place. By October, when the Act comes into effect, all crown prosecutors will be thoroughly trained. It is interesting that, in the training process, a great deal of co-operation between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police has occurred; police and prosecutors have worked together. [Interruption.] I know that the introduction of the Act is a source of mirth for Conservative Members, but it is a serious and important measure that will promote rights and responsibilities in this country.

Europe

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What areas of United Kingdom law have been affected by (a) accession to EU treaties by the United Kingdom and (b) decisions of the European Court in the last three years. [117753]

The Solicitor-General: Each year the United Kingdom becomes bound by obligations under international agreements affecting almost every area of policy. These range from the environment to air traffic to patents.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the European Court. As he knows there are two. The European Court of Justice delivers judgments in all areas where there is a European Community law dimension. Again, the range is wide, covering competition law, employment law, environmental protection and state aids. As a member of the European Community, we are bound by the judgments of the court.
In addition, there is the European Court of Human Rights, which I have just mentioned. It affects all areas of United Kingdom law in which convention rights exist.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not true that, whenever the British Government agree to treaty changes handing over responsibility for whole chunks of policy—for example, the social policy aspect of the Amsterdam treaty—the democratic accountability of this Parliament is diminished and the independence of our judiciary is fettered? Would it not be better if such matters were dealt with by national Governments, whenever possible, instead of by unelected European institutions?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman's original question contained more misconceptions per square inch than I have seen for a while; the supplementary contained even more.
We are members of the European Community. The hon. Gentleman's Government were in office for 18 years; they signed treaties that resulted in the European Commission acquiring certain powers. I realise that certain hon. Members sitting near the hon. Gentleman are members of the café society—Conservatives Against a Federal Europe—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not.

The Solicitor-General: I am reassured by that. However, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is a member of that society, and its members believe in getting out of Europe. I hope that the hon. Member for


Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will explain to his constituents how many jobs would be lost as a result of that policy.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that the European Court of Justice has any value to the United Kingdom, and if so, what is that value?

The Solicitor-General: The ECJ enforces the treaty. That is important because it introduces the rule of law throughout Europe. Too often during the previous century, the rule of law has not been effective in some parts of Europe.
We value the work of the ECJ. For example, yesterday, I was before the court, arguing a case involving the cigarette advertising directive. If we are successful in that case, we shall quickly be able to introduce effective regulations to ban cigarette advertising. The resultant benefit to human health will be considerable.
There are problems with the European Court. For example, there are delays. However, the court has developed a plan for improvements in its procedures; we support such reforms.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister not realise that severe dangers are posed to our sovereignty by the moves in Brussels and Strasbourg to replace English law by the code Napoleon? Will he tell us whether the Government are prepared to stand against the plans for corpus juris? Does he acknowledge the huge concern caused by the fact that so much of vital interest to our citizens bypasses the UK and the House, and is being addressed with no democratic accountability at all?

The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman is also a member of the café society—so that is where he is coming from—but he is scaremongering. On the corpus juris proposals, all that has happened is that an interim report has been produced—there is not even a final report. The important point about the report was that it addressed the serious problem of fraud in the community—against which measures must be taken. We have said that the best way to approach the problem would be for member states to act co-operatively. There is no

scope for a public prosecutor; we have made it plain that we reject that idea. We have also made it clear that there is no scope for a European criminal code. As for the reference to the code Napoleon, that is cloud cuckoo land.

Government Legal Service

Valerie Davey: What steps are being taken to ensure equal career opportunities for women in the Government legal service. [117754]

The Solicitor-General: The Government legal service takes very seriously the issue of equal career opportunities for women. The head of the GLS is personally leading work by a group of lawyers, drawn from across the service, who will examine its contribution to the modernising Government agenda. That, of course, includes diversity issues. The service supports and encourages different working patterns; another working group is looking specifically at such practices so as to increase the opportunities for lawyers to work part-time, to job-share or to work at home. The Treasury Solicitor's department has recently introduced a mentoring scheme for all its lawyers; under that scheme, women in senior posts are available to provide advice and encouragement to their more junior colleagues.

Valerie Davey: I welcome that response. May I press my hon. and learned Friend to tell us how many women have been appointed to the Government legal service and, more particularly, to senior posts?

The Solicitor-General: Just under 50 per cent. of the Government legal service is composed of women, and just over a quarter of staff in the senior civil service are women. The record in the Government legal service is therefore quite good, but we should not be complacent. Underachievement in recruiting women to higher posts can be explained historically, and in part by the attitude of the previous Government. We take gender and diversity seriously, and that is changing the impression of service in government. As Ministers, we have pressed the Government legal service to do as much as possible. Sixty per cent. of recruits to the service are women, and with time, that will have a profound effect on the numbers appointed to senior posts.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 17 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 18 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Postal Services Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Utilities Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 20 APRIL—Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment debate.
I remind the House that that sitting will follow a Friday pattern: I would hate to see hon. Members arriving for a different pattern of sitting.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The business for the week after the Easter break will be as follows:
TUESDAY 2 MAY—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 3 MAY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 4 MAY—Debate on the Royal Commission report on the reform of the House of Lords on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 5 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
I should like to inform the House of business to be taken in Westminster Hall for when the House is sitting during May.
THURSDAY 4 MAY—Debate on a sporting future for all.
THURSDAY 11 MAY—Debate on a Select Committee report—subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 18 MAY—Debate on the future of the construction industry.
THURSDAY 25 MAY—There will be no debates in Westminster Hall.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of business for the week after the Easter recess. Does the right hon. Lady envisage making a business statement next Thursday?
I am glad that at long last we are to debate the Wakeham report, although I note that the chosen date of 4 May is one when the country's attention may be focused on other events. The House is due to debate the Utilities Bill on Wednesday. Has the Leader of the House anything further to tell us about Government amendments to the Bill, as 359 have already been tabled? Do the Government plan to withdraw even more clauses?
In view of the growing interest in the way in which the House operates, may we debate the Liaison Committee's report promoted at Prime Minister's Question Time by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—possibly the only promotion that he is likely to see?
There is continued concern in the House about events in Zimbabwe. Will the Foreign Secretary undertake to keep the House informed?
Will the Leader of the House tell us whether statements are expected next week on defence procurement or on the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency?
Could we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport clarifying whether the Government have prejudged the bid to run the lottery? On Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), declared in Westminster Hall:
The Government always have been, and still are, committed to a not-for-profit lottery.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall,11 April 2000; Vol. 348. c. 11 WH.]
Does that remain true when there are two bids?
Finally, can we have a debate on the report on Rover by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, in view of continuing concern about the future of motor manufacturing in this country?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It sounds as though we will be here all Easter.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right: that is an extensive programme.
I anticipate making a business statement next Thursday and hope, through discussion with the usual channels, to establish a time that is convenient for the House.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) was uncharacteristically ungracious about the timing of our debate on the reform of the House of Lords. He has been calling for the debate for some time and the day set is, after all, a sitting day. He argues that there will be passionate interest in local elections; I hope that he is right.
The Utilities Bill will be debated in the House in the near future. I do not anticipate dramatic changes, although it is right that the House should make that legislation effective.
I have taken note of the desire expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that the Liaison Committee's report should be debated. The Government are giving the report's many profound recommendations careful consideration, and we will report to the House in due course.
We shall endeavour to keep the House informed about Zimbabwe.
I cannot say now whether or when a statement is likely on the defence issues raised by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire.
Furthermore, having already had several debates and statements on Rover, I do not anticipate that another is likely in the near future, although I shall certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind.
The claims that either the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or the Government have prejudged the award of the lottery contract cannot possibly be true. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the selection of the next operator of the national lottery is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the National Lottery Commission. I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport,


has written to him about the matter, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be answering a question in the near future to put the matter beyond doubt.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read early-day motion 614, on free long-term care for the elderly?
[That this House warmly welcomes the support for free long-term nursing home care for the elderly expressed by the Secretary of State for Health following his speech to the Royal College of Nursing Congress in Bournemouth on 5th April; notes that this is in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission Report on Long Term Care, With Respect to Old Age, published in March 1999; asks the Secretary of State to make a formal statement to the House at the earliest opportunity; and urges the Government to bring forward legislation as soon as possible, abolishing means-tested charges for elderly, nursing and residential home care and lifting the burden from all those elderly citizens who are in, or soon to enter, long-term care.]
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the awful current arrangements, under which the elderly and the sick are subjected to means-tested nursing charges—a concept quite at odds with the ideals of the national health service. Has our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said whether he intends to make a statement in the near future?

Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the great interest taken by my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members in those issues, which are of considerable importance. The Government are considering all the recommendations of the royal commission on long-term care in the context of our overall spending review. My hon. Friend can be confident that, when we have announcements to make, they will be made to the House.

Mr. Paul Tyler: We strongly endorse the call for an early debate on the Liaison Committee's report, but may I draw to the right hon. Lady's attention the fact that that is a House of Commons matter? It is not primarily a matter for the Government, so to hear that the Government are giving careful consideration to the report's profound recommendations fills me with considerable concern; that is the nearest thing to a kick into the long grass that we have heard this afternoon.
I endorse the view of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) that an early debate on Lords reform is extremely important, if we are obtain a statement from the Government on the timetable for phase 2. There is a widespread view in the House that the status quo is not a long-term option; it can only go on for a year or two. The appointments system is so ridiculous and has been brought into such disrepute by recent events that it cannot continue.
Will the Leader of the House find time after the Easter recess to debate the continuing and increasingly obvious problem of political amnesia which appears to have struck some hon. Members in recent days? Not only have Conservatives failed to remember their tax increases, but, yesterday, they completely failed to remember their own action in respect of the closure of post offices, if the right hon. Lady was present for Agriculture questions a few minutes ago, she will know that they now have the

nerve to have forgotten completely not only their mismanagement of the BSE crisis, but their demolition of the milk marketing scheme, which completely destroyed dairy farmers.

Mrs. Beckett: I heard, with astonishment equal to the hon. Gentleman's, the remarks that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday about the closure of post offices, and I have frequently heard extraordinary remarks about tax increases. I missed the Conservatives' forgetting that they had some hand in the BSE crisis, but I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for calling it to my attention. I shall certainly bear in mind that that is yet another area in which Conservatives, who were still talking about the record of the previous Labour Government 18 years after they had ceased to hold office, do not seem to be able to remember what they were doing little more than 18 months ago.
With regard to the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, I hope that we will have a constructive and useful debate about Lords reform. As I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government are keen to proceed with further reform, which we hope to be able to do on the basis of common ground and consensus. It is not clear whether that is a possibility, but the Government are anxious to explore it. There was an earlier debate in the Lords, and it will be helpful to see how the debate goes in this House.
On the Liaison Committee report, I fully accept that that is a matter for the House. I understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks, in the knock-about of this place, about the Government saying that they would give it careful consideration, but he would not be very pleased if we said that we would not give it careful consideration.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Any progress on the Intelligence and Security Committee annual report debate?

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Shh! It' s a secret.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend any information about that. [Laughter]

Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Leader of the House recognise that the principal example of political amnesia in recent months has been the inability of the Prime Minister to remember that the fox hunting Bill of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) never went near the House of Lords at all, delighted though I am that we are to debate House of Lords reform?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, the Prime Minister has always made it plain that it was consideration of the impact on the Government's programme primarily, though not solely in the House of Lords, which led the Government to the conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!] There is no point in Opposition Members whingeing about it.
As it was made crystal clear to the Government that in the House of Lords there were Members who felt even more strongly about the freedom to continue killing foxes than about the freedom to continue operating as the House of Lords—in other words, they attached greater


importance to that issue than to House of Lords reform—the Government were under no illusions. Indeed, we were explicitly threatened that it would cost us the rest of our legislative programme if we did anything in that Parliament further to progress that private Member's Bill. It was clear, therefore, that there was nothing to be gained—certainly, the Bill could not be gained—by finding extra time. That was the Government's conclusion. If it is the view of Opposition Members that these are not matters of balance and judgment as to where advantage can be gained and lost, no wonder they are in opposition and we are in government.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the extraordinary recent history of British Nuclear Fuels, which has been condemned internationally for falsifying safety reports? This week The Guardian and "Dispatches" revealed correspondence—the documents look impressive and appear to be genuine—which claim that British Nuclear Fuels public affairs department has allegedly conspired with hon. Members to undermine the work of one Minister and one Back Bencher.

Mrs. Beckett: I have seen brief reference to the documents to which my hon. Friend refers. I have no knowledge as to whether they are genuine. All I can say is that the attempts appear to have been conspicuously unsuccessful.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that it is time that we had a proper debate on foreign affairs, not only in view of the extremely grave situation in Rhodesia, which potentially affects the livelihood and security of British nationals, but because of the bizarre statement by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who called on Premier Oil to withdraw from the Yetagun oil project in Myanmar, without any legal basis for such an instruction? Is not the Government's foreign policy totally discredited and increasingly embattled? If China acts against Tibetans, or the Russians obliterate Grozny, the Government do not seem to care, but a British company legally doing business in Myanmar must pack its bags and go home.

Mrs. Beckett: At Foreign Office questions, some 40 minutes was spent on Zimbabwe, which is the country's name.
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to differ from the Minister's attitude to Burma. However, it is widely acknowledged that the civil and human rights position in that country is appalling. Indeed, many people would argue that it was uniquely awful. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that it is right for Ministers at the British Foreign Office to bring pressure to bear to improve that position.

Ms Margaret Moran: The all-party group on domestic violence has recently concluded an online consultation—which involved 1,000 contributions from communities throughout the country—with survivors of domestic violence. The powerful contributions include evidence of violence and abuse against children, and even child death through the courts granting child contact orders

to families with a history of domestic violence. Will my right hon. Friend agree to an early debate to enable hon. Members to consider ways in which we can amend the Children Act 1989 to protect children who desperately need our help?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about this important subject. I also understand her wish to remind the House of the value of the online consultation, in which she has taken a great interest and which she is trying to develop so that hon. Members can use modern technology to gain even more information, and to give people the opportunity to make their views and concerns known here. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the specific subject to which she refers, and that the Government are not in a position to consider the Children Act 1989. However, the issue is worth airing, and I recommend to my hon. Friend the proceedings in Westminster Hall.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Lady cast her mind back to yesterday's debate on sub-post offices, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry mentioned the possibility of subsidies for sub-post masters and mistresses? So little detail was provided that I said:
There was talk of subsidy. How much? How is it to be dealt with? Has it been agreed with the Treasury? I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will clarify the matter.—[Official Report, 12 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 394.]
To be generous, perhaps the Minister did not spell it out because of time constraints. Nevertheless, the matter was not clarified. It is so important to the lives of sub-post masters and mistresses that we should have a statement next week so that they know what the Government are up to.

Mrs. Beckett: We shall have a debate on the remaining stages of the Postal Services Bill on Tuesday, and an opportunity to raise the matter may arise then. Of course, my right hon. Friend had clearance from the Treasury to make his observations. However, details of the proposals may still be under consideration; we are talking about proposals that will be considered if problems arise. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the steps that the Government are taking to safeguard the future of small sub-post offices. Those steps were not taken or even contemplated by the previous Government.

Mr. Richard Burden: I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the possibility of holding an early debate next week on Rover in the light of today's Select Committee report. Tomorrow many thousands of Rover workers at Longbridge will go on a two-week shutdown. They do not know whether they will return to jobs or whether their futures will have been traded away to a group of venture capitalists. Today's Select Committee report emphasises the importance of careful consideration of alternative bids. Can we have a debate next week to ascertain how hon. Members and the Government can assist that process?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand, and the whole House recognises, that my hon. Friend and his parliamentary neighbours have done a great deal to advocate the cause of the workers at Longbridge and continue to keep up their great interest in and advocacy


of that work force's perfectly understandable concerns. He rightly says that the Select Committee has produced an important report, but he will know that the Government have not had much time to consider it. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; he may wish to draw them to the attention of the Liaison Committee, which makes proposals to the Government on debating Select Committee reports.

Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate after Easter on accountability for ministerial statements? I ask for such a debate because on 13 April 1999 the then Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), made a remark. By correspondence, I sought a justification for it. A year later, I have received a letter from a private secretary in that Department saying:
Ms Jackson's remark was based on briefing from the Labour party and your correspondence has accordingly been treated as political.
I seek a debate because that is a method by which Ministers can side-step their accountability to Parliament for remarks made at the Dispatch Box. We also need to know when Ministers are making party political statements on behalf of the Labour party and are therefore not accountable and when they are speaking as Ministers with proper briefing. That is an important matter and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to accede to my request.

Mrs. Beckett: I can think of few less profitable ways of spending time.

Ms Julia Drown: My right hon. Friend may be aware that the deadline for adding herbicide-tolerant maize to the national list of seed varieties is only a week away. If that maize is added to the national list, it will, for the first time, enable genetically modified crops to be grown commercially in this country. Given the public concerns that have been raised over GM technology, will the Government find time for an early debate on that important issue?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future, although, like my hon. Friend, I recognise how close that deadline is. I am aware that the relevant Ministers have the matter under review, and she will probably know that it has been made plain that the Government do not intend to allow commercial planting until tests have been extensively studied. However, I shall draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. David Heath: May I follow up the question asked by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown)? The Leader of the House says that the Government will not allow planting, but once GM maize is on the seed list there will be nothing to prevent it from being planted, other than the good will of the manufacturers involved. Will she find time for a debate? People who rightly want to object to the addition of GM crops to the seed list have to pay £30 for the privilege. As if that were not bad enough, they will not be able to

object at all in future years because the matter will be entirely for the Minister to decide. Will the right hon. Lady consider that?

Mrs. Beckett: Again, all I can do is undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks and concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I fear that I cannot find time for a debate in the House in the near future, but the hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), may want to consider the merits of Westminster Hall.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend fancy having a statement next week encapsulating her thoughts on what happened on the Floor of the House this week? On Monday, a question on asylum, which is a very important subject, took 21 minutes. Tuesday was much better as an answer on Zimbabwe given at the end of Foreign Office questions rescued Question Time, but on Wednesday, by my calculation, the Leader of the Opposition occupied some 18 minutes of Prime Minister's questions.
By what alchemy or authority does a Leader of the Opposition have a right to ask six questions? Is it understood how demeaning it is to Parliament to see the ranting that is now Prime Minister's questions? Can we not go back to the old custom of addressing questions not to the day's engagements, but specifically to the Prime Minister's responsibilities? Anything else should be transferred.

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a discussion of the kind proposed by my hon. Friend, but I agree that there are occasions on which Prime Minister's Question Time may not be a good advertisement for the intellectual qualities and capacity of the House. You, Madam Speaker, frequently point that out to us all.
My hon. Friend's last point about the content of Question Time is very important. The trend that he identified has developed over many Parliaments, and I cannot say that I anticipate a likely return to a more subject-based Question Time; but I understand his concern, and I know the Chair feels that the House might have more regard to the way in which we conduct our debates. Perhaps all Members will heed those remarks.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: We are about to debate the longest Finance Bill for a century. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government's allocation of time for that debate will reflect the huge length of the Bill, and that we shall have time for proper discussion of, not least, the climate change levy—which, according to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury,
will be revenue neutral for the private sector?
A representative of a company in my constituency—LINPAC Group, one of the most successful private firms in the country—wrote to me saying of the Financial Secretary:
I do not know which planet he is from but I notice that he says the Levy package is expected to be broadly neutral between manufacturing and services!
A debate is urgently needed, because the prospect of the levy is causing real hardship and concern to local manufacturers.

Mrs. Beckett: We have just engaged in debates on the Budget itself. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was able to contribute, but certainly a number of days are available on which Members can raise such concerns.
I recognise that this is the longest Finance Bill in history; indeed, I am particularly mindful of the fact. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Bill contains measures that repeal other legislation, including, I understand, some 40 pages of complex legislation on paying and collecting agents. Nevertheless, the Government appreciate that the House will want proper arrangements for discussion of the Bill. As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, that is one of the reasons why the Government continue to promote the attractiveness of proper programming of debates: only by such means can we ensure that issues that are rightly of genuine concern to Members can be aired.

Ms Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the impact of the high pound on the car components industry, especially in view of the recent closures and job losses in Wales? Aeroquip, in my constituency, has lost 140 jobs, and Alloy Wheels in Whitchurch—also in my constituency—has lost 250. Both announcements have been made within the last 10 days.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern for her constituents, and for the prosperity of businesses in her constituency. She will know, however, that much depends on the degree to which individual companies are exporting to Europe rather than elsewhere, and that the situation is complex and difficult. She will also know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor sought to ease the position of the business community through a variety of means in the Budget. Members will have an opportunity to air these matters during the debates on the Finance Bill, to which my hon. Friend no doubt hopes to contribute.

Ms Rosie Winterton: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should not mind what the Opposition are saying. I will deal with them in a moment.

Ms Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate whether legislation is now necessary to make kerb crawling an arrestable offence? There are particular areas in my constituency where residents feel extremely threatened by the activities of kerb crawlers and are understandably worried about the safety of their children. Local police have made it clear to me that a change in the law is necessary. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that she will look at the issue seriously?

Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the fact that my hon. Friend has long campaigned on that important issue. Kerb

crawling causes great distress to families, particularly because of its effect on children. The Government accept that there is a strong argument that a specific power of arrest would assist the police in dealing with the problem. I am not in a position to tell her at present that we are likely to introduce such a provision in the very near future, but we are looking at including it in some of the draft legislation that the Government are considering and hope to publish for consultation in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is not the problem with Prime Minister's questions that the Prime Minister does not like to come to the Dispatch Box? Let us go back to having two Prime Minister's Question Times a week—on a Tuesday and a Thursday for 15 minutes each. I was quite happy with that.
We failed to get the Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box to make a statement following his summit with farmers, so is it possible to have a full day's debate on the state of agriculture, which is in the worst crisis for 60 years—indeed, it has been exacerbated during the past three years of the Labour Government? Even post the aid package that was announced, farmers are still reeling and suffering—farmers such as Paul Kenny in my constituency, who cannot make a profit out of farming.
During today's Agriculture questions, aid to pig farming was mentioned. The Leader of the House may not have noticed, but the protest is still taking place in Parliament square. Winnie the pig is still there. If the right hon. Lady cares to come with me after Prime Minister's questions to have a chat with the farmers there, I will hold her hand as we cross the road.

Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the National Farmers Union has welcomed the package that the Government have announced. I fear that he is nurturing an illusion. There may be only one Winnie the pig, but there is a substantial number of pigs—they are working shifts, I understand—on the demonstration. The hon. Gentleman will be happy to know that it is not one solitary pig being progressively poisoned by fumes in Parliament square. [Interruption.] If they are all called Winnie, I hope that they are all female pigs.
I do not know why the hon. Gentleman keeps making that rather tedious point about the Prime Minister not liking to come to the House. As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions, the Prime Minister attends Prime Minister's Question Time more frequently than his predecessor. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is happy with the way it was before, when the then Prime Minister came less often, that is less than kind to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Apparently, the Home Office is sitting on a report that it commissioned from Professor Paul Weller, which suggests that the next monarch should be crowned by Buddhist priests and representatives of other religions in a ceremony not entirely dissimilar from that which opened the millennium dome. Might we have a statement on those proposals? It seems to some us rather odd that the first commandment seems to have escaped the Government, which contains so many professing Christians.

Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to say that I am entirely unaware of any such report. I am not entirely sure how


accurate—if such a report exists—the hon. Gentleman's description of it is. lf, however, it is accurate, perhaps it is a good thing that the Home Office is sitting on it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is about six weeks since the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended after the threats by the Ulster Unionists? Will there be a statement soon as to what will happen about the Members who are still being paid? It seems odd to some of us that that Assembly needs to get back to how it was before, yet, at the same time, the Members are drawing the money. It looks to me as though they will continue in that vein for ever unless, at some point, someone says that the Assembly has to start again. What are the conditions for that happening? Will there be a statement on the matter? Are we going to get that Assembly back on the road? If we do not, those Members will continue being paid a salary for not attending, and that will produce only gridlock.

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are very anxious indeed to see the institutions begin to work again. I am very mindful, having heard from someone who has been close to some of the negotiations, of what a pleasure it was to hear Members from Northern Ireland begin to argue about matters such as housing and education. We all wish those discussions again to become the focus of political concerns in the Province. I fear, however, that I cannot find time in the near future for a debate on the further implications of the suspension to which my hon. Friend referred. Perhaps he will have a chance to the air the matter at the next Northern Ireland Question Time.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Madam Speaker, you probably are not familiar with European Commission document COM (1999) 719 Final, which proposes the establishment of a European food authority and was debated yesterday in European Standing Committee C. The debate was attended by only 15 hon. Members. If the 84 action points in the document's annexe were implemented, it would effectively usurp all British law on food production and agriculture. It would also make redundant the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the recently established Food Standards Agency and much local authority activity.
Yesterday, I pressed the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), three times for a White Paper on the matter to be debated on the Floor of the House. The document's consequences are so momentous that they could effectively result in a programme that is larger than this Session's Queen's Speech. Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to a full Government White Paper and a full debate on the document on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the preparation of a Government White Paper is not the work of a matter of moments. However, I certainly understand the concern that he expresses, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I cannot, however, undertake readily to find time in the near future for such a debate on the Floor of the House.

Helen Jones: Could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the plans recently

announced by the Whitworths Group to close its plant in Warrington, with the loss of approximately 250 jobs? In view of the high-handed way in which that company has behaved, and its failure to recognise trade unions in its Warrington plant, is it not time that we had a debate, with a Minister at the Dispatch Box, so that we could discuss the role of companies that behave more like 19th-century mill owners than modern employers?

Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly sorry to learn of the concerns that my hon. Friend identifies and of the problems that are caused to her constituents. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a debate in the House on the matter. May I, however, again recommend to her the virtues of Westminster Hall, which I believe has doubled the opportunities for Back-Bench Members to raise such issues in an Adjournment debate.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Given the uncharacteristically brusque response of the Leader of the House to the important question on parliamentary accountability asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), I hesitate to ask another question on the subject. [Interruption.] I shall, nevertheless, risk it.
Will the right hon. Lady find time for a statement by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on the role of prime ministerial special envoys who are, of course, unaccountable to Parliament in relation to their security clearances and to briefings that they may have had from either United Kingdom or foreign intelligence services?

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Lord Levy.

Dr. Lewis: Such a statement would give the House a chance to obtain more information from the Minister than I was able to obtain on Tuesday, when I asked a very pertinent related question of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on Lord Levy.

Mrs. Beckett: Quite properly, the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have taken the opportunity to raise the issue of the role of Lord Levy. The Government have made it plain that Lord Levy has occasionally played a valuable role, and that the processes and discussions in which he has occasionally been engaged have been ones that we hope will help to facilitate the cause of peace. I should hope that all hon. Members would support such processes.

Mr. David Winnick: Although the twice-weekly Prime Minister's questions may have provided more time for Back Benchers, there is—as my hon. Friend for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said—a feeling of dissatisfaction over Prime Minister's Question Time now because of the very limited opportunities provided to Back Benchers. Although the Conservatives will make spiteful remarks about the Prime Minister, would it be possible to examine the matter through the usual channels? Far more than half the half-hour is given to the two Front Benches, and time is then given to the leader of the Liberal Democrats. The opportunities for those of us who table questions regularly—and who are lucky if we get into the top four or five more than twice a year—are very limited.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. As the record shows, he is entirely correct to say that the


concern expressed by the Opposition is more than a little spurious. The Prime Minister has withdrawn from Question Time the supplementary remarks that used to be interspersed between questions, which has created more time. The Prime Minister has answered more questions than his predecessor in the equivalent period of time. Given the time and the number of questions that may be answered, I understand my hon. Friend's concern that Back Benchers do not have as much time as most hon. Members would think desirable. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will take heed of his remarks.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that it is only two days since the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), said explicitly in Westminster Hall that the Government were committed to a not-for-profit lottery—only to be comprehensively contradicted within 48 hours by her boss and by the Leader of the House—is it not essential, under the terms of the ministerial code of conduct and the guidance to Ministers, for that Minister to come to the House without delay and offer a full explanation and apology? Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that, if the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting does not do that, the suspicion that the Government are zealous lobbyists for Richard Branson, and that they have fatally compromised the independence of the National Lottery Commission, will inevitably gain ground?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not think that any reasonable person would draw such a conclusion, nor do I think that there is a need for what the hon. Gentleman suggests. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made the Government's position perfectly plain in Westminster Hall. She also commented on the Government's welcome for not-for-profit bidders, as well as for bidders who are not not-for-profit, if I may put it that way. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to the Opposition spokesman setting out the position. The hon. Gentleman has now tabled a parliamentary question, which has been answered. The Government's position is clear and on the record, and the matter has been dealt with.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), can we find time to debate the need for a public inquiry into the management and future of Sellafield, particularly in view of the growing evidence of a culture of institutional falsification, as well as the allegations to which my hon. Friend referred? Can we review the economic, employment and environmental implications of ceasing reprocessing and switching work to decommissioning and safety?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend calls for an announcement of a public inquiry, and I understand that he is anxious for the many issues surrounding operations at Sellafield to be aired. However, such inquiries take considerable time. If he would like the Government to consider the problems, BNFL to take action within its remit, and the Government and the safety inspectorate to

take action within their remit, a public inquiry may not be the fastest course of action. I undertake to draw my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of relevant Ministers.

Mr. Nigel Beard: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on health, and in particular this week's report from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on hip replacements, which goes a long way towards fulfilling the Government's commitment to abolishing the postcode lottery? That approach could then be contrasted with the approach taken in an article by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Health Secretary, in which he proposed that all hip replacement operations should be private, at a cost of £5,000 each.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right: the guidance issued by NICE is both authoritative and welcome and is a clear indication of the improvements that we are gradually beginning to make in the health service, although there is much more to do. He is also right to say that that stands in stark contrast to the pronouncements of the Conservative party, whose policy on health seems to target the elderly, as it is predominantly elderly people who are most in need of the operations that the shadow Health Secretary wants to be handled only by the private sector. Tempting though that makes such a debate, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for it in the near future.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will consider a debate in Government time on the way in which local authorities use bailiffs. Such a debate would enable the House to consider the rules and procedures that local authorities use when sending out bailiffs and might help to prevent the further incompetent deployment of bailiffs by Westminster city council, which caused considerable distress to my constituent, Mr. Lanning, and his family by sending out bailiffs to collect fines that had already been paid well within the council's required period.

Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly sorry to learn of the distress caused to my hon. Friend's constituent by the actions of Westminster city council, and I understand his concern, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. He will be aware that the Local Government Bill is under discussion and proceeding through the House, and it may afford him an opportunity to raise these matters. I believe that the issue of the use of bailiffs is already under review.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on class sizes? In Croydon, the proportion of five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of more than 30 has fallen from 32 per cent. to 10 per cent. since 1997. I understand that, a year ago, on the "Today" programme, Steven Norris, the Tory mayoral candidate, said that he was concerned that the Conservatives had failed to deliver improvements in public sector education. In that year, the proportion of children in large class sizes has been halved. It is important to have a debate to set the record straight: we have delivered where the Tories have confessed to failure.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. Not only in Croydon but throughout the country the number of


children in very large infant classes has halved. It is generally accepted in the world of education that, as the evidence suggests, class sizes are most crucial in those early years. That is why the Government have focused on that area. However, although such a debate would indeed provide an opportunity to examine the record of both the Conservatives and the Government, I fear that it is yet another attractive opportunity that I shall have to decline for now.

BILL PRESENTED

LICENSING (CANNABIS)

Mr. Paul Flynn presented a Bill to allow the supply and consumption of cannabis and cannabis resin on licensed premises: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June, and to be printed [Bill 113].

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, you were kind enough to hear my point of order, and you were also in the Chair for business questions today. In the light of the response of the Leader of the House to what I said, may I ask you to reflect on the resolution of the House, detailed on page 63 of "Erskine May", that
ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments …?
I do not believe that I have had a satisfactory reply to the important point that I raised. I ask you to reflect on the matter and give a ruling on how Ministers should be accountable for what they say in the House.

Madam Speaker: At the risk of appearing brusque to some hon. Gentlemen, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave yesterday, which was a considerable and considered one. I heard the exchange today and I was happy to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to raise the matter with the Leader of the House. As he requests, I shall refresh my memory of "Erskine May" and see what I can do about the matter.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised his concern about the conduct of Prime Minister's questions, but you will have observed that several hon. Members, including me, were exercising their leg muscles to no productive effect during questions to the Solicitor-General and were disappointed that we got through only three questions in the 15 minutes allotted. Is it not reasonable in the circumstances to advise the Solicitor-General that he is deputed to answer questions, not Adjournment debates?

Madam Speaker: Three questions were taken, but the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, readily accept that there were supplementaries to those questions. However, I am sure that the point has been taken.

Armed Forces Personnel

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I hope to be able to spend a little longer addressing the House than I was able to do on Third Reading of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. Before I move on to the details of our current policies and programmes on personnel, I want to put the debate in its broader context. It can almost seem a cliché these debates when hon. Members refer to our armed forces as the best in the world, but it is certainly justified. That is also the view of the British public, who regularly in opinion polls put the armed forces up at the top of the groups they admire. The good thing about journalists is they sometimes prevent us politicians from being at the bottom of those tables.
That view is shared by the armed forces fellow military professionals around the world and by the wider international community who regularly look for contributions, particularly early contributions, from our armed forces. Whether fighting or peacekeeping, their reputation and their record is superb. But what is it that brings that about? We need to stress that it is not primarily equipment, very important though that is. After all, any country with sufficient resources can buy new kit.
The key element is the quality of our people both individually and, even more significantly, collectively. It is certainly true that individually our service men and women are superb. They are bright, capable, committed and enthusiastic. One of the best things about this job is getting out to meet our troops and hearing them describe what they do, the satisfaction they have in a job well done and the impact that has on the lives of others. However, in the broader context, even more significant has been the forces' ability over many years to create an identity, an ethos and a system for moulding the collective effort that is the key to their internationally recognised quality. We, as Defence Ministers, and the current service chiefs have to consider how we can best build on that.
The measure of our success as a Government is whether we enhance or erode that common purpose, and in what shape we hand it on. Now I realise that that could be seen as a hostage to fortune, but I believe it is, and should be, proper and agreed common ground on both sides of the House.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is not the Minister concerned that a doctrine of political correctness—some of it imported, but a measure of it home grown—is undermining that ethos and constraining service life and training? What will he do about that?

Mr. Spellar: If that were the case, we would of course be concerned. As it is not, we are not.
So how are we doing? The answer is not badly. We have dealt with some of the more glaring problems, we have reacted quickly as new ones have arisen, and in some areas we still have some way to go—but we have plans for progress.
What does the situation look like on the front line? In the past 12 months, I have made a point of visiting our personnel whenever possible, to see what they do and to

hear what they have to say. During my visits, I have been struck by a fact that is sometimes sadly overlooked, not least by the media. It is that our people greatly enjoy what they do. Again and again, talking to defence personnel, I and other hon. Members hear the refrain, "It's the best job in the world." That should not surprise us. We are employing people whose careers give them quite extraordinary opportunities to travel, to learn or to make a difference. Increasingly, that is what they do. They truly are a force for good worldwide.
We have forces deployed globally, reflecting Britain's interests as a key international player and a trading nation. In addition to our major deployments in the Balkans and the Gulf, personnel are deployed in support of United Nations operations in Cyprus, along the Iraq-Kuwait border, in Georgia, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and East Timor. They are all making a magnificent contribution to ensuring peace and rebuilding shattered communities.
There can be little that is more rewarding than seeing that one's actions make people's lives better and knowing that one is making the world a safer place in which to live. Whether it is a pilot delivering supplies in Mozambique or a soldier bringing stability and safety to the streets of Pristina or providing advice in west Africa, our people can see that they are doing good.
Our personnel are chosen because of the people that they are: self-starting, enthusiastic and active. They enjoy being engaged on operations and relish the challenges that operations present. They take immense pride in doing what they do to the highest professional standards. Time and again, when talking to personnel on operations I, and others, encounter enthusiasm, pride and professionalism, even when a specific isolated task may be unpleasant and, indeed, even dangerous. I am sure that the House hardly needs me to remind it of the exemplary conduct displayed by our troops worldwide, including in such difficult circumstances as the unrest in the town of Mitrovica earlier this year. We are proud of them.
This House and the British people owe our personnel an enormous debt of gratitude for that unstinting enthusiasm and professionalism. By the same token, the support that our personnel receive from the British people, much of the media and this House means a great deal to them. It shows them that the great value of what they do is appreciated by the people back home. That is tremendously important to them, particularly when the immediate crisis has passed and their task has slipped from the public consciousness and from media attention.
It is important that all in this House remember that, away from the headlines, we have personnel on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—366, this year—often in trying circumstances. In Ulster, the Balkans and the Gulf, our people are risking their lives day in, day out on our behalf. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our thanks and appreciation for what they do.
We cannot, however, ignore the price of such commitment. There is no doubt that the services are extremely busy and that is not just the front line. To keep units on operations requires a tremendous support organisation and that, too, has to work extremely hard to make operations a success. That high level of operational commitment has a number of effects. The first, and most obvious, is the pressure on personnel and their families, with long periods of separation, uncertainty and


disruption—none of these are good for family life. While an individual may be enjoying the challenges and excitement of an operational deployment, it can be a different story for the family left at home.
Early on, this Government recognised the pressures on our personnel and determined that we would take major steps to lessen those pressures, and we have. Whenever and wherever we can, we have been reducing commitments. The percentage of the trained Army that is now committed to operations is 27, which is slightly below that committed in 1997. Our ongoing restructuring of the armed forces will help.
We are being proactive and imaginative in reducing commitments. For instance, earlier this year we awarded a £20 million contract for the installation of a telecommunications network for our forces in the Balkans—that network will free 260 Royal Signals soldiers from their Balkans commitments by the end of this year. We all know of the pressures on our signals personnel. I will return to other measures to improve the lives of our people shortly.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the families left at home. Of course, families are also left in the Rhine Army, when personnel have gone to serve in Mitrovica or elsewhere in the Balkans. Can my hon. Friend say anything on the vexed question of overseas allowances? It is totally unsatisfactory that people should be getting less for serving in the Balkans than they do when they are in Rhine Army.

Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend will be aware of the substantial amount of the overseas allowance that is still retained. I will deal later with the additional allowances that we have been providing for separation. I take my hon. Friend's point that there is a difficulty. This is an extremely complicated issue, which relates to taxation issues as well. I would be more than happy to correspond with my hon. Friend to explain some of the problems that we have encountered.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Everyone in the House will welcome the Minister's announcement about signallers. I think that the interval between operational tours for signallers in the current year is down to six months—a long way short of the 24 months that is supposed to be the ideal. What effect will the hon. Gentleman's announcement have on the interval between operational tours?

Mr. Spellar: It will assist. I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the difficulties with signallers. The market in the telecommunications industry is extremely buoyant. I sometimes wish that the industry would train some more of its own people rather than benefiting from the excellent training that our people receive. We recognise that there is overstretch, which is why we are taking measures such as this to ameliorate the problem—not to solve it, because there is a substantial underlying problem facing us and other armed forces. We also need to look to the future to see how we can involve the reserve forces more and retain our training.

Mr. Julian Brazier: In the light of the Minister's very specific answer on the Royal Signals and

his mention of the reserve forces, can he explain why the number of permanent staff in the signals regiments in the Territorial Army has been reduced? How also will it assist standards in the Territorial Army if we take out the signals regiments from their professional signals brigades, which emphasise professional standards, and put them in with the ad hoc so-called regional brigades?

Mr. Spellar: That will relate to the operational requirements of the Army, because there are signals detachments in various parts of the Army. I will have to look into the other aspect of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but there is always a balance to be struck between the highly skilled people who are required for operations and those who can provide training. There is always a difficulty, particularly when there is undermanning and a large number of engagements. It is within those broad parameters that we face difficulties and need to strike the right balance.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I recognise that the Minister wants to get on, and I do not want to delay him too long. He made a point earlier in his speech which led to some interventions. He said that the level of commitment was down to 27 per cent. for the Army. What is the figure for the armed forces overall, including the other two services?

Mr. Spellar: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give the hon. Gentleman those figures in his reply. However, we all recognise that the most substantial pressures have been in the Army, and we are very pleased to have reduced the figure to a more acceptable and manageable level.
A less obvious effect of operations is the impact on the training of our personnel. It may seem paradoxical, but being engaged on operations, particularly those undertaken in the Balkans and the Gulf, leads to a degree of skill fade among our personnel. The most difficult and collectively demanding thing our forces are trained to do is engage in high-intensity warfighting operations. To maintain their ability to conduct such operations, they need sophisticated and challenging training. This—particularly large-scale collective training—is, by and large, simply not possible for personnel deployed on operations.
It is crucial that our forces do not lose their ability to operate at the very highest end of the conflict spectrum. We cannot afford to relax standards here. Had we needed to fight our way into Kosovo last year, our forces' warfighting skills would have been at a premium. Not only is warfighting our forces ultimate raison d'être, but long experience has shown us that training hard for the high end of the conflict spectrum equips our forces with the sort of skills that we see put to valued use on non-warfighting operations too.
Successful collective training is, of course, dependent on successful individual training. It is, therefore, crucial that we have the best training system in place for the individuals in the armed forces and for the civilians who support them. That is why Lord Robertson announced, last July, a wide-ranging and fundamental review of individual training and education for the armed forces and Ministry of Defence civilians. That review is complementary to the strategic defence review.
Training is a large and diverse business in the Ministry of Defence, which is the largest single supplier of training in the United Kingdom, and one of the largest in Europe. We train many thousands of people each year, from fast-jet pilots to finance officers. We run more than 40 training establishments, including a joint service command and staff college, a university and a sixth-form college. Like any large organisation, we must also ensure that not only those in the front line but those working in support are trained to conduct their business efficiently and effectively.
As with any other aspect of business, we must ensure from time to time that our training requirement is right and that it is being delivered to the proper standard, achieving the right result and providing value for money. We recognised that the time to do that was now. We need to ensure that the training and education that we provide will meet our operational and business needs in this new century. We need to make sure that our training is delivered by the most effective means, taking advantage of modern technology and methods of learning.
As a wider Government aim, we want to ensure that as much armed forces training and education as possible is relevant to, and recognised in, civilian life. We seek to provide skills for life, not just for the duration of a service career. That has been much appreciated by the service men and women with whom I have had discussions.
These considerations provide a compelling case for a review of our training and education activities. We have now completed the first stage of the review, identifying the key objectives and the areas on which we should focus. Like the strategic defence review, this review will be open and transparent. The House may be aware that I recently chaired a seminar at the Royal United Services Institute on this very subject. A range of distinguished participants from the services and from industry and education attended, all of whom made valuable contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for participating in the seminar; his presence was appreciated.
The high value of our people and the need to do more for them have been constant themes of this Government. Improving the lives of service personnel and their families is a long-term goal that we set ourselves from the outset. We are achieving it through our "Policy for People" strategy.
We set out in the 1999 Defence White Paper how far we have come towards implementing that policy. We have introduced measures for individuals, and for families too. We have modernised the facilities available for our personnel. We said that we wanted modern forces for a modern world, and that means that we are committed to being modern also in our approach to personnel policies.

Mr. David Drew: Clearly it is important that we get right the relationship with families and other dependants. However, when I was doing the armed forces parliamentary scheme last year, I was struck by the lack of appropriate accommodation and support for single people. Will my hon. Friend describe some of the action taken in that regard?

Mr. Spellar: I fully recognise the strength of my hon. Friend's point. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of

State will deal with the question of accommodation at greater length when he replies to the debate. The subject of single living accommodation has been neglected for many years. Buildings need to be repaired and refurbished, as my hon. Friend will describe.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I support the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The Minister will be aware that Aldershot has some very substandard accommodation. The Normandy, Bruneval and Rhine barracks—a legacy of Poulson—are especially bad. I understand that they will not be removed until 2005. Given that a lot of single people will be coming to Aldershot with the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment and the Welsh Guards, will the Minister say whether there are any plans to bring forward the refurbishment programme?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is right. The major and significant problem to which he refers is one of long standing. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with the time scale at greater length later, but we recognise the problem.

Sir Archie Hamilton: If the rumours in the newspapers are right, the whole Aldershot site will be sold off. If so, are not the chances of the accommodation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred being improved almost nil?

Mr. Spellar: I have learned not to believe everything I read in the newspapers, not even when I put material into them. That applies especially in this instance. A report on initial training has been prepared for the Army. It focuses on the locations for that training throughout the country, on whether the training takes place at the right places and on whether there is a need for a rebalance, especially in terms of where we recruit for the armed forces, particularly for the Army.
A substantial part of Aldershot is not in the training area. I have already discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), and provided him with an answer. I cannot be responsible for the headlines in the media, especially those in the Sunday press.

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Mr. Spellar: No, I will not give way.
I am able easily to move into the subject of recruitment. We are doing more to encourage young people to join the armed forces. We wish to make them a career of first choice, and we are doing well. We are also doing more to encourage personnel to stay, although we still have some way to go.
I have already mentioned the effects of high levels of operational commitment. There are pressures on families and family life as well as on individuals. We are determined to do what we can to ensure that family life does not suffer as a result of the demands that we place on the armed forces. When we were conducting surveys during the strategic defence review, service personnel told us that separation was a considerable problem.
Not only did we listen to what we were told, we took action. We have made improvements to the package of benefits that personnel receive while on operations. We have increased the telephone allowance twice, from three


to 20 minutes a week, so that personnel can better keep in touch with those at home. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will recall events in East Timor and Mozambique, where British forces were deployed rapidly and at short notice to lend assistance to the United Nations and to disaster relief efforts. In both instances, welfare lessons learned in the Balkans were put to good use. Specifically, we learned that getting the provision of welfare telephones right was crucial. We acknowledged that there were problems in the Balkans and we did something about them. We introduced Project Welcome, a new contact for the provision of welfare telephones.
Project Welcome will ensure that personnel deployed on operations are able to keep in touch with their families back home. It is now working very well in the Balkans. It worked well in East Timor, and in Mozambique telephones were deployed with the lead elements of the force and were operational within 24 hours. However, in the Gulf region, where we have almost 1,500 personnel maintaining the northern and southern no-fly zones, we know that there have been some technical problems with the introduction of Project Welcome telephones. The speech quality of the original system was not good, and it was difficult for untrained personnel to use. These difficulties have been raised with us constructively by the Select Committee on Defence and by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), and I thank those involved for so doing.
We have taken temporary measures to resolve the problems. For the longer term, we shall shortly be changing the communications system used in the Gulf region. We are determined to make Project Welcome work for our personnel. We are not in the business of making hollow promises. Instead, we are delivering.
We are alive to the potential of modern technology. As I have reported before to the House, we have trialled an electronic bluey, an electronic version of the traditional forces aerogramme, with forces deployed to the Balkans and the Falkland Islands. We provide internet terminals at units and family centres throughout the country so that as many people as possible can have access to it, and we have installed internet communications on Royal Navy ships. Carriers are taking up to 1,000 e-mail messages a week and destroyers and frigates are taking about 50 to 80, and that is on a rising trend. We have introduced guaranteed periods of post-operational tour leave so that personnel can be assured that they will be able to spend time with their families when they return from operations.
I am particularly proud of the achievements of the service families taskforce, which I lead. It is continuing to address and overcome problems faced by service families that fall outside the scope of the Ministry of Defence alone. Many of these problems have been drawn to our attention by the excellent work of the families federation, to which I pay tribute. The taskforce is truly an example of joined-up government in action. We have brought together Departments and Ministers across Whitehall to resolve difficulties that have previously been significant disincentives to service life.
I am grateful to ministerial colleagues for their help in resolving these issues. The taskforce began its work in the autumn of 1998, and in its 18 months of existence impressive results have been achieved.
For the first time, the code of practice on schools admissions now makes specific reference to service children. Service children's education is now represented

on new local authority admission forums in most areas where there are many service children, and local education authorities are now directed to be sensitive to the position of service children returning from abroad.
I was pleased to announce during my recent visit to RAF Waddington that children of armed forces personnel are now exempt from the three-year residence requirement normally needed to qualify for student loans. That means that service children will no longer be disadvantaged by the fact that their parents are serving abroad. As a result of problems brought to light by the service families taskforce, the national health service has established 24 incentive schemes for dentists to take on more NHS patients in areas where there are many service personnel.
We identified the fact that service spouses were failing—through no fault of their own—to meet the criteria to allow them to claim jobseeker's allowance when they moved around the country. Working with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security, we have therefore produced guidance to overcome that problem. We are also considering a number of other issues, such as how to help service children with special educational needs and, with the credit organisations, how to tackle the refusal of credit to service personnel. It is quite wrong that the men and women who serve their country should be denied—simply because we require them, as part of their duties, to move around more than the average, or to serve overseas—what so many of us take for granted.

Mr. James Gray: Does the Minister not agree that one of the finest facilities for service children with special educational needs is provided at the school in the Cotswolds services centre in my constituency? Will he wish the centre his very best and assure it of its continued existence?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with me about the centre. We face a difficulty, because that excellent facility, which provides a first-class service, is underused. We have to consider how we best provide the range of services offered by the centre, which is used by personnel for several different reasons. We have to decide whether the centre is the most effective way of providing those services. As he knows, we are in consultation on the future of the centre and we are considering how we can best proceed. We are considering whether it should be a service base and assessing whether the service should necessarily be provided from a particular centre. None of that in any way detracts from the excellent work that is undertaken by the staff there, but we have to consider whether the facility is the most effective way of providing a necessary range of services.
If anybody doubts the case for joined-up government, or its effectiveness in action, they need look no further than the service families taskforce to see the real benefits that it is bringing. However, I recognise that there is still work to be done. Enabling someone to be given credit for time already spent on an NHS waiting list on moving to a new area has to be balanced against the clinical needs of those already on the waiting list in the new area. Enabling the portability of child-minding registration—a matter that has been raised with us—has created understandable concerns about whether child safety might


be compromised. The taskforce is continuing to work on these and other problems, but their successful resolution will take a little time.
Retaining our personnel remains an issue on which we need to do more. It is not easy, as we all recognise, to persuade people to stay in the armed forces once they have made the decision to go. We know that many of those who have left in recent times have done so not because they no longer wish to serve their country, but because they are no longer willing to put up with the pressure that their career places on their families. We must recognise that some of that pressure is inevitable; it goes with the job and it is not something we can change. However, we can do much and we can do more to mitigate the consequences. Of course, we do not want to lose people when we have made a considerable investment in time and money training and developing them and when they still have much to offer.
We have taken action to encourage people to serve longer. That action is not just for those deployed on operations; it also supports their families. We have already increased the allowances for separated service to acknowledge and reward those individuals who have experienced the greatest separation. Those who suffer more than 280 days paid separation in a two-year period will receive a £1,000 bonus, and those who are separated for more than 365 days will get £2,000. We have already reduced the qualifying periods for those allowances and, as part of this year's pay deal, increased the daily rates at which they are paid. For families, we have introduced improvements and greater flexibility in the concessionary travel scheme, so that families based overseas can have more choice of how they return to the UK; for instance, they can now use Eurostar.
For the longer term, we are looking at a number of ways to encourage people to serve longer. They range from addressing sources of irritation identified by services personnel themselves—such as accommodation—to considering the provision of incentives, financial and others, to continue a services career.
In the latter category, our learning forces initiative is providing recognised, highly sought-after skills and qualifications. We have also introduced targeted schemes. Currently, 3,500 personnel are in Kosovo and 3,300 are in Bosnia-Herzegovina—although the latter figure will drop to about 2,000 by the end of this year. As well as contributing to the maintenance of peace and stability and to the building of democracy in the region, we are enabling our personnel to train. In Croatia, the Army has established a theatre education centre in Split to provide education services to personnel deployed in the area. The RAF has installed IT-based learning facilities at stations and detachments in the Gulf, Italy and Bosnia. Last year, when I visited Cosford, many of the personnel who had used those facilities told me that they had found them extremely useful.
Our efforts do not stop there.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The Minister said that, in addition to enforcing peace and stability in former Yugoslavia, our forces there are being given the opportunity to train. Will he confirm that our Challenger 2 tanks deployed in that area have no training

ammunition at present? They have only war ammunition, which cannot be used in training as it contains depleted uranium. The forces are unable to undergo training—an extremely important matter for our armed services.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my remarks. I was making a point about individual training and education programmes. We are providing facilities for our forces to undertake such programmes. I was not, in this instance, referring to the military training described by the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman correctly points out, and as I mentioned earlier in my speech, operations can be detrimental to the broader training required by our people. We need to find a balance; that is why we have introduced the initiatives that I described earlier.
As I was saying, my right hon. Friend announced on 22 February that we had completed development of the armed forces overarching personnel strategy. That will provide a coherent framework within which we can develop policies that will allow us to recruit and retain the best and brightest that society has to offer.
That new approach, which is currently being introduced across the armed forces, will allow us to identify issues of concern to services personnel and to address them before they become major disincentives to service life.

Mr. Tom King: Previously, we were told that it was hoped to achieve the full manning target for the Army by 2004. The date has been revised and has now slipped to 31 March 2005. Will the Minister confirm that and comment on it?

Mr. Spellar: The date was 2005. We have been moving towards more positive figures for the Army. Although they are not yet satisfactory, fortunately they are rising. As I have been pointing out, we need to achieve the right balance between recruitment—last year, it was at its best for about 10 years—and translating initial recruitment into trained personnel. We have been refining our procedures for that, especially on fitness training, so that we lose fewer people during the build-up. We are not compromising on standards for the completion of training; we are doing more building up for several reasons—not least the reduction in sport in schools over several years. We are also incorporating the measures on retention that I outlined. That has resulted in a positive balance, although I acknowledge that the figure is not yet satisfactory. The trend is in the right direction, however.

Mr. John Smith: We all welcome the initiatives that the Government have introduced to help to deal with our inheritance from the Conservative Government—the huge shortfall in establishment in all the services. Is my hon. Friend a little concerned that, because of the Government's success on employment—800,000 new jobs during the past three years and employment rising every day—our job will be more difficult in future years?

Mr. Spellar: It is a great tribute to our training and recruitment teams that, in the face of a substantial increase in employment throughout most of the country, we have been able to achieve substantial recruitment figures. Traditionally, high employment has had an impact on retention, and it still does. That is why we need to try


harder to do away with many of the irritants in service life, for both service personnel and their families, to sustain retention in the face of attractive employment prospects, especially among those qualified to work in the telecommunications industry.
We are looking ahead to the challenges of tomorrow, not only on the world stage, but in the lives of our people. The armed forces overarching personnel strategy epitomises our approach to joined-up government. For the first time, the armed forces collectively have a coherent, overarching strategy within which to develop their personnel policies.
Talking of the need to recruit, figures to date indicate that nearly 25,000 people have joined the armed forces in the past 12 months: that is 96 per cent. of our target for the year. More than 3,000 of those recruits are women. However, we acknowledge that we have a way to go before we have armed forces that are sufficiently representative of our society.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The first year in which there were Government-set targets for the recruitment of members of ethnic minority communities has just ended, on 31 March. Does my hon. Friend have the figures for the year, and did the armed forces meet the target set for them?

Mr. Spellar: We fell slightly short of the targets, but were well ahead on the numbers of the previous year. The ethnic recruitment team is doing a tremendous job. I hope that, like many hon. Members, my hon. Friend has met the members of that team as they go around the country, putting across our message in a highly effective way to youngsters, many of whom have had no previous contact with the armed forces. As I often say, however much Ministers say about the opportunities available to youngsters from the ethnic communities, nothing is more effective than a member of that community in our uniform putting across our message. That is why recruitment is increasing among youngsters from ethnic communities and why many personnel from ethnic communities are moving up through promotion.

Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister for the Armed Forces bear it in mind that one of his own hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), served in the Indian Army during the last war? It might be worth giving him some prominence, so as to reach back across the generations and influence grandmothers and grandfathers who still have a say in encouraging youngsters to join up.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of speaking to those who have influence in the community as part of our effort to persuade youngsters that the armed forces offer a good career. We want to send the message that many members of the ethnic communities who now live in this country have previously served in the armed forces. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments, and he will be pleased to learn that, at the reception for the Royal Navy held the other day, Commander Manchanda of the ethnic minorities recruitment team had a long conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) about involving him in the team's work in west London.
We have some way to go before we reach the numbers required, but we are determined to continue our efforts to attract into the armed forces the brightest and the best, whatever their gender, ethnic origin or social background. I am pleased to say that we offer taster days for young women in the armed forces and the MOD civil service to show them the exciting opportunities that are available. Finally, to return to the theme of modernising our approach, the armed forces are dramatically increasing their use of the internet as a recruiting mechanism. I hope to report further to the House on our success in this regard.
I do not have time today to list all the measures that we are taking to improve the lives and careers of our forces. I know that in his closing speech this evening, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will address some of the measures on which I have only touched, in particular improvements to service accommodation, which we recognise is a longstanding and legitimate grievance of both married and, as was rightly stressed earlier, single personnel.
The measures that I have mentioned demonstrate, as I am sure the House will agree, how much we—the Government and the House—value all our defence personnel, and show what we are doing to help them to continue to perform their job, which they do so magnificently for our people and our country.

2 pm

Mr. Robert Key: I start by thanking the Minister for the Armed Forces for a very good annual report. It was a lot better than this year's defence White Paper, and a lot more fun, too. We start on a good note—it was a good speech, if I may say so.
Since we last debated armed forces personnel, a great deal has happened, and much of it has been good. Inevitably in these debates, we concentrate on problems and challenges, though the Minister of course presented an up-beat report. It is important to remember that most of the time, most armed forces personnel and their dependants are doing a superb job, usually—in spite of everything—pursuing a challenging life style and enjoying a high quality of life. I agree with the Minister about that.
I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends hope to raise a number of issues. Between us, we will draw to the House's attention facts that Ministers will find less palatable, but which they cannot ignore.
It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in his place. I look forward to his contribution from the perspective of Ulster.
I would be remiss not to point out that in spite of the new constitutional relationships with Scotland, there is not a single member of the Scottish National party present, even though this Parliament continues to have responsibility for defence in Scotland.
I remind Ministers that, this year, the Ministry of Defence faces a real-terms percentage budget cut since 1998–99 of 3.8 per cent. Furthermore, the 1999–2000 winter supplementary estimates noted that the MOD's departmental expenditure limit after the first six months of the year was running 4.3 per cent. ahead of forecast. If that continues unchecked for the entire financial year, it could result in an overspend of £950 million.
The Select Committee on Defence was told that the additional costs of Kosovo operations falling on last year's budget were likely to be almost £400 million. Even if that were met from the capital reserve, it would still leave a significant margin to be clawed back by the Department in order to avoid breaching its cash limit.
The strategic defence review settlement was based on achieving 3 per cent. a year cumulative efficiency improvements over the four years to 2001–02. That means £500 million worth of new efficiency measures every year. We are told that that has been achieved, but the Defence Committee concluded:
We cannot be expected to believe the MOD's assurances that these measures are genuine efficiency savings, and not cuts, until it produces this evidence. A year-on-year programme of efficiency savings can have a debilitating effect at all levels of command and can be destructive to the quality of life that will sustain retention in the armed forces.
The Committee concluded that
if the wheels have not yet come off the SDR, they are certainly beginning to wobble alarmingly… Commitments and resources have to be brought back into line, or we risk finding ourselves stumbling from one crisis to the next.
The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has taken into account recruitment, retention and motivation of the armed forces and has recommended an increase in basic military salary of 3.3 per cent. for all ranks, with the exception of privates, lance corporals, captains and lieutenants, who should receive 3.8 per cent. An increase of 1 per cent. in the X factor is also recommended.
That means an additional cost to the defence budget of £260 million, which must be met within existing departmental expenditure limits. Will armed forces personnel be better off in real terms, or will the increases once again be swallowed up by rising messing charges and rents?
Air Marshal Pledger, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Personnel), told the Defence Committee that the attitude surveys of people leaving the armed forces showed that operational tempo was the main reason for people wishing to leave. The adjutant-general confirmed that overstretch and undermanning remain top of the list. There is a 5 per cent. shortage of personnel on Royal Navy ships, which are already lean manned. That must have an effect on education, individual and team training, and drills.
The Army has an agreed period of 24 months for tour intervals, yet no Army units achieve that. The Royal Engineers and the Royal Signals have tour intervals of seven months and six months respectively. In the Army, nights out of bed have accounted for as much as 31 per cent. of the time. That assessment did not cover the period of highest commitment last summer.
The position remains critical in the Royal Air Force, which is 95 fast-jet pilots under strength. Ministers have failed to explain how they plan to reverse that dangerous downward spiral.

Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. The devastating figure that he has cited for pilots is underlined by the fact that, unlike many other industries, the aviation industry is currently

depressed and airlines are not recruiting large numbers of pilots. It is difficult to imagine what will happen when there is an upturn in recruiting.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. I am the first to acknowledge that Ministers have a difficult task. Last year, when I accompanied the Minister's predecessor to Corsica and Italy to visit Royal Air Force personnel at the end of the Kosovo conflict, it was clear that they felt that they had achieved all that they could hope to do. One unit had carried out 900 bombing missions between 16 pilots in four months. The personnel said that they would never do that again. It is true that there are great temptations in the civilian world, but Ministers must decide how they will reverse the downward spiral.
The naval service is 1,900 short in trained strength; the Army is 5,600 short and the RAF is 1,200 short. I am the first to congratulate the Army on a substantial improvement in recruitment, but retention remains a serious problem. My worst fears were confirmed this week in an answer to a parliamentary question in which Ministers revealed the gravity of the position of the Scottish regiments. They are undermanned by approximately 600 people. That is the equivalent of a whole Scottish regiment, given that those regiments are mostly battalion strength. It is bad news for Scotland as well as the United Kingdom. That underlines my earlier point that Scottish National Members should be here, participating in the debate.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman makes that point for the second time. I do not want to make a yah-boo point against Scottish National Members, but never a week goes by without their defence spokesmen sending letters from the Mound that make pronouncements on defence policy. The problem is that they believe that defence policy belongs to the Holyrood Parliament.

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, I am a Unionist and I believe strongly in the Union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's points by drawing attention to the extent to which the civilian work force at Faslane resent Scottish Nationalists' absurd obsession with a separate defence policy.
An especially worrying consequence of undermanning and overstretch is the rising divorce rates for couples of which at least one spouse is in one of the three services. Since 1990, the divorce rate has risen in the Army from 1.8 per cent. to 2 per cent.; in the Royal Navy, from 3.7 per cent. to 3.8 per cent., and in the Royal Air Force from 2.9 per cent. to 3.4 per cent. Those increases may not seem especially startling, but in the same period, the figures for the civilian population have fallen from 1.25 per cent. to 1.07 per cent. The RAF therefore has a divorce rate that is nearly three times as high as the civilian average.
Sometimes there are major problems. More often, the details of daily living cause the most friction. Friction at home occupies the mind of the service man or woman on the front line. That is why it is right to raise such issues while acknowledging our pride in the success of our armed forces personnel.
It therefore genuinely mattered when the Defence Housing Executive announced that it would cut the £2 million that was assigned for the purchase of carpets


and curtains for married quarters. It mattered to service families out of all proportion to the sum saved to the defence budget, as the Army Families Federation has told us. A much bigger problem arose as a bad example of overstretch when the tour intervals for a commando gunner became meaningless because he was posted overseas five times in only two years, during which his eight-year-old daughter attended seven schools. That is just not on.
Although statistics always lag behind events, the serious divorce level among Territorial Army families is becoming apparent. Wives are proud of their TA menfolk, but with 2,800 TA members serving overseas—in spite or perhaps because of the 18,000 cut in TA strength—unreasonable strains are being put on marriages. The Army Families Federation is not alone in looking after the interests of those who follow the flag. I pay particular tribute to Airwaves—the Association of RAF Wives—whose patron is the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and which recently held a highly successful annual conference at the Royal British Legion college at Tidworth.
We are all relieved and delighted that RAF wives and dependants are building a successful and professional support organisation. RAF families are inevitably spread wide and thin across the United Kingdom and overseas, and need all the support that they can get. May I make a particular plea for armed forces personnel in Cyprus? I hope that Ministers will press their colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over passports for pets for service personnel serving there—Cyprus has particular problems—and elsewhere, in particular Germany.
Also supporting the whole military community at garrison level are the Army welfare services. I pay particular tribute to them. Their budgets are being constantly squeezed by Land Command as the defence budget continues to be cut. Every garrison produces its newsletter, but I pay particular tribute to those who produce "Drumbeat", the Tidworth, Netheravon and Bulford community newsletter, which has run for 35 issues. This substantial source of supportive information contains everything from the times of church services and news on the citizens advice bureau, Relate and family entertainments to Defence Housing Executive and police news, holiday activities and rubbish recycling information.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am most interested in my hon. Friend's remarks about "Drumbeat". I am sure that he is about to mention the "Aldershot Garrison Herald"—a marvellous publication that occasionally reports my speeches in the House, I am pleased to say.

Mr. Key: There is an idea for "Drumbeat". I shall give way to any hon. Member who has recently read his garrison magazine.
I mentioned the RBL training centre, and any consideration of forces personnel must include the RBL's amazing work. It not only looks after former service men and women, but firmly looks to the future and plays an important role, particularly through its training college, in the education and training of those who are about to leave or have left the forces. The RBL has always been about more than poppy day and we owe it not only our thanks and admiration, but our support for its future role.
We should not blame our armed forces personnel or their families if they ask, as they do increasingly, "What is it all for?" General Sir Mike Jackson, Commander-in-Chief, Land Forces spoke about that at last week's excellent Ministry of Defence seminar at the Royal United Services Institute on the future of defence training and education. I am grateful to the Minister of State for inviting me to attend. With characteristic bluntness, General Jackson reminded us that, in the final analysis, a member of Her Majesty's forces knows that it is kill or be killed. In those circumstances, he said, education is all very well, but what is needed are qualifications for the after life.
General Jackson reminded us that British forces need physical, moral and conceptual training that will equip them with an ability to make sensible judgments in deserts and in the Arctic, in towns and cities and in jungles, with allies who speak, train and think differently. Service men must make judgments in the public eye, in the dark, under chemical attack and under attack from the air. British service men and women have to operate in three dimensions. They must handle fear. They must know how to react when they make mistakes. They usually find themselves with insufficient information and maximum disinformation.
Professional forces are a permanent target for deception. They must be highly technical. They face endless intricate requirements for co-ordination with unreliable communications. They will be pitted against a highly intelligent foe. They must make their judgments within the law. Service men and women know that the hardest part is not the physical, but the psychological. As von Clausewitz said, in wartime operations even the easiest things are very difficult.
For our professional forces, day-to-day friction is inevitable. On operations, there will always be uncertainty and chaos, violence and danger and a great deal of human stress. General Jackson made it clear that the course of education and training on which the Ministry of Defence has embarked is for everyone at every level, from general national vocational qualification to higher education. As I added, it should also be for forces families and dependants, and for civilian Ministry of Defence employees. The Ministry has set itself a huge challenge. Last week's seminar was an early point in the process, which Conservative Members warmly endorse. We shall do our bit by keeping the Ministry up to the mark on behalf of our service men and women and their dependants and civilian personnel.
Are the members of Her Majesty's forces different? Do we want Her Majesty's forces to reflect British society? Before 1997, the agenda of political correctness was creeping up on the military, but there was no enthusiasm for it. In the past three years, some of the eight Ministers who have served in the Ministry of Defence have, with their political advisers, been more keen than others, but it is unquestionably true that Ministers now welcome the correctness agenda.
United States forces are ahead of us, of course. President Bill Clinton's agenda has been to build an army whose diversity of race and gender makes it look like America. As The Sunday Times told us last weekend, on American bases special exercise classes are held for pregnant soldiers. Training standards have been lowered. The obstacle course at one base has been renamed a confidence course so as not to intimidate women.


Men must be able to throw a grenade 35 m, while women can pass muster by tossing it over a concrete wall. A new book on women in the armed forces by Stephanie Gutmann, "The Kinder, Gentler Military", has raised hackles in the Pentagon. The author writes:
When we are involved again in a real war the fiercer, angrier, most blood-lusting force will win …
and that is not a description of America's new age army.
Do we want such an Army, Navy and Air Force for Britain and is it inevitable that we will get them? The passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill through the House and the other place has shown the irresponsible attitude of Ministers. There was no attempt to justify the wholesale weakening of the chain of command and no attempt to answer the fundamental questions put by Conservative Members or, indeed, by noble and gallant peers of no political persuasion in the other place.
With the qualification that, on our return to office, we shall ask the chiefs of staffs to review the impact on operational effectiveness of the change of rules on homosexuals in the forces, we warmly welcome the introduction of the new tri-service disciplinary code, which judges all personal behaviour in all three services against the overriding criterion of operational effectiveness.
Another landmark publication, after many years of work at the adjutant-general's headquarters, is the excellent new document "Values and Standards of the British Army". It is worth reminding the House of the foreword by the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roger Wheeler:
The Army is proud of our achievements and our reputation for excellence, none of which would be possible without the commitment, drive, courage and quality of our men and women. These Values and Standards have been developed to underpin our ethos, and formally to codify the standards of conduct essential to sustain the moral component of fighting power. They have to be more than just a form of words; they must be comprehensive yet understandable, inspiring rather than threatening, contemporary yet enduring, underpinning combat effectiveness yet morally defensible, and above all robust enough to sustain us in war. They also form the basis of a covenant between the Army and its soldiers rather than a set of commandments …
Paragraph 11, in the section on the Army's core values and selfless commitment, states:
Soldiers volunteering for the British Army accept that, by putting the needs of the Service before their own, they will forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. But in return they can at all times expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as an individual, and to be rewarded by reasonable terms and conditions of service.
Paragraph 15, in the section on discipline, states:
Because discipline is so vital to success on operations, commanders must be able to enforce it when necessary. That requires clearly understood rules and a military legal system which can deal with offences such as absence, desertion or insubordination which are not found in civil law. And if it is to work in war, such a system must be in place in peace, for it cannot be turned on and off at will.
A parallel document, "Core Values and Standards in the Royal Air Force", conveys a similarly powerful message.
Those sentiments are wholly right. Long may they continue to have precedence over the tone of the arguments advanced by Defence Ministers during the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill.

Mr. Cohen: May I return the hon. Gentleman to his argument about political correctness? His party took a politically correct line in saying that people who had been in prison or had a criminal record should not be allowed to join the forces. That was the position taken by Opposition Front Benchers just a few months ago.
Some people with criminal records might prove ideal to serve in the armed forces. They are probably very fit, and in any event they deserve a second chance. Has the hon. Gentleman's party changed its politically correct stance?

Mr. Key: I am glad to report that the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. He and I met at a briefing at 8.15 this morning, and we should have had a word about the matter then, but I assure him that that is not the line of the official Opposition. I am the first to say that people who have served their time and paid their debt to society make very fine soldiers, sailors and airmen, and always have. I am reminded of the recruiting sergeant whose first duty on Monday mornings was to attend the magistrates court to do little deals behind the scenes to assist the magistrates—recruiting straight from the cells, or rather straight from the court. I am sure that that did a great deal of good all round.
Let me say something about the importance of the Royal Military Police and the Ministry of Defence police. When I was in Kosovo last autumn, I was hugely impressed by the fantastic response of the Royal Military Police to the seemingly hopeless prospects of a country without civilian police, without effective law, without courts and with growing disorder. The RMP rose to the occasion, even running the only prison outside Pristina in which civilians could be locked up, often for their own good.
Back home in the United Kingdom, the RMP will now have to adjust their ways and accept an increased burden following the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. They will have to be more sensitive in handling potentially disruptive personal and sexual situations, and they will be constrained as a result of new human rights legislation; but I know that, again, they will rise to the occasion.
The Ministry of Defence police continue to face an uncertain future. Downsizing of the force has been delayed, not least to allow 60 officers to train for service in Kosovo, where they will complement the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We wish them well.
I hope that Ministers will make swift progress in agreeing with the Home Office an extension of the MOD police's jurisdiction, so that they can exercise their constabulary powers beyond the immediate vicinity of MOD property. That would improve their efficiency considerably, and would also give MOD police officers protection if they encountered an incident in which they should properly intervene. MOD police personnel have been professional and very patient in the face of the introduction of other police units to carry out less demanding guard functions. They deserve a period of stability.
Today we heard of the theft of guns from the Royal Artillery at Larkhill in Wiltshire. I know that the MOD police have risen to the occasion: they are working closely with the Wiltshire county constabulary, with a joint control room and the use of a police helicopter. I am sure


that, when the incident has been fully evaluated and the crime has been solved, there will be lessons to be learned. One of those lessons will be how important it is for the MOD police and, indeed, the Royal Military Police to interact constructively with Home Office constabulary—which they largely and increasingly successfully do.
We all want to see better retention and much more recruitment. We all want to have the best-trained forces in the world, and we know that we have the most highly motivated forces in the world. So what threats does our nation face that might send our forces into action?
The first problem is that most of our forces are trained for high-intensity warfare, but find themselves in peace-enforcement or peacekeeping roles. They are very good at that, but it would be a grave mistake not to train to the standards required for high-intensity warfare. Our forces can operate at a peacekeeping level so long as their training for high-intensity operations is maintained; if it is not, we are all in trouble. The defence budget is having an impact on training, and I hope that Ministers will monitor it closely.
It is important for the inquiry into improvements at the Otterburn ranges to turn out the right way. There will be a serious negative impact if the Army is not allowed to train on those ranges in the way that is necessary.
Most other NATO forces are not nearly as well equipped or well trained as our forces. That makes any joint action more difficult, and also underlines the absolute imperative of maintaining the highest standards of training and reducing overstretch so that training does not go by default. Given the level of overstretch, however, the role of the Territorial Army and the reserves in other forces continues to become more and more important. A new call-out order was made only last week under section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 so that members of the reserve forces can continue to support operations in the former Yugoslavia and the Gulf area. Only volunteers will be called out. However, we know that during the Kosovo conflict last year Ministers got within a few days of compulsory mobilisation of the TA to sustain peace support operations in the Balkans.
Compulsory mobilisation would have been legal under section 54 of the 1996 Act. Of course, the Secretary of State would also need to be satisfied that such a mobilisation could be justified in policy and political terms. As the Chief of the General Staff said in his advice to the Secretary of State last December, there was potential for such a mobilisation to be linked to regular Army undermanning, and therefore to be subject to adverse comment. It could also resurrect the debate about whether the TA reductions should have been delayed until the Army was fully manned. Then there was the question of the risk of employer appeal, which was assessed to be about 20 per cent. of the total number mobilised. The risk of individual appeal was put at no more than 15 per cent.
Perhaps the most extraordinary part of the advice to the Secretary of State concerned funding. The additional cost to the defence budget of the mobilisation of the preferred units of specialist engineers and a composite logistics squadron would have been £3.5 million, for which no provision existed at the time. That was, however, one of the three elements in the package of proposals aimed at alleviating the effect of overstretch on the armed forces, which was being discussed with the Treasury at the time. But this is the killer issue: any decision to mobilise would

have to depend on agreement by the Treasury to meet the additional costs involved. That was the advice of the Chief of the General Staff. For the very first time, and under a Labour Government, the Ministry of Defence has not the financial headroom to call out 20 specialist engineers for a year and a logistics squadron of 100 for six months, without the prior permission of the Treasury. That really is a first for Labour.
Incidentally, would Defence Ministers have a word with the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers about support for the reserve forces among chief constables? While some chief constables—in Hampshire, for example—are very supportive of the reserves, others are alleged to be totally unsupportive. I am told that that applies in Essex. Some chief constables have difficulty in persuading their police authorities to be supportive—for example, in the west midlands and Northumbria—and are therefore unable to be outwardly supportive themselves. The Government expect private sector employers to support a relevant and usable reserve; it is unfortunate, to say the least, that there is inconsistency in that respect in the public sector.
Compulsory mobilisation, even of small units, is a lengthy process. Had Ministers decided on compulsory mobilisation of the TA so that the forces were deployed in the Balkans next month, a ministerial decision and announcement would have been needed by early January at the latest, according to the Chief of the General Staff. Given those substantial time lags, how do the Ministry of Defence and British military units assess their future activities? It is the Government's duty to assess as accurately as possible—even to predict—things that might go wrong in the world which would affect Britain's national interests. To achieve that, the Government must listen to what is happening.
The less said about the defence intelligence services and Government communications headquarters the better—only because they are fantastically successful organisations, and are best left to get on with their work quietly. I wish instead to comment on two aspects of predictions by the Government, particularly the Ministry of Defence, on future activity.
Defence policy is supposed to be led by foreign policy. The MOD rightly points out that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office failed to predict the Falklands war, the Gulf war and the Balkans conflict. At our embassies all over the world a great deal of very professional work is being achieved, but things seem to be a little slower at the Whitehall end.
In December 1999, the FCO invited all its embassies around the world to use their local knowledge to predict likely civil wars, insurrection and disturbances. The FCO in London expected nine positive responses. Our embassies sent to London a list of 53 trouble spots.
Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood has also identified 50 to 60 potential operations that might be needed over the next two years. The key operations remain Bosnia, Kosovo, northern Iraq, southern Iraq, East Timor and the Caribbean drug problem. However, the number of potential operations identified has severe implications for overstretch and equipment in the forces and in terms of the defence budget.
We keep coming back to the vital point: the Government cannot continue cutting the defence budget without adjusting the commitments of our forces. There is a credibility problem; there is a credibility problem with Ministers themselves.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman has made two or three references to the budget. For the sake of the House, will he clarify whether it is his party's position to increase the defence budget? If it is, by how much would it increase it and where would the money come from?

Mr. Key: I seem to remember that question being regularly asked when we were in government and when we questioned Labour Members. They will have to wait and see. The hon. Gentleman will enjoy the suspense, but I assure him that we will not seek to have commitments and budget unmatched, as they are now. It is not worth the candle of the strain that it is putting on our armed forces.
As I say, there is a credibility problem with Ministers. During the recent passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill, it emerged that the Ministers driving through that fundamental change to the courts martial process had never been to a court martial in session. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence visited the Colchester glasshouse during our proceedings. We were glad about that.
Then we had the astonishing statement from the Secretary of State that metal bashing is no longer a vital national asset. It does make us wonder whether any Ministers have actually sat inside an AS90 or Warrior—I have—in which armed forces personnel train and use their professional skills as a matter of course. Metal bashing has a whole new dimension for them.
Metal bashing also seems important for the thousands of shipyard workers on the Clyde. I reassure the Clyde work force that I have visited those shipyards. I was incredibly impressed by the world-beating technology that is now the norm on the Clyde. That shows that some of our most traditional industries can adapt successfully to take on the world. It is deeply patronising of the Secretary of State to write off the employees of Scottish shipyards in that way.
I have visited the superb shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness that is producing the finest submarines in the world. For a Royal Navy submariner who is submerged for many weeks in defence of our democracy, metal bashing certainly seems important and is beyond question a vital national asset. I have also visited BAE Systems at Broughton, where 21st century aircraft metal bashing is beyond doubt a national asset.
As Danny Carrigan, Scottish Regional Secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, said yesterday:
If MOD Civil Servants spin against Govan, we will continue to battle for Govan.
Ministers should not be surprised if the Clydeside trade union starts to spin against the Labour party in Scotland. We are talking about a multi-million pound contract for roll on/roll off ferries. I agree with the general secretary of the GMB union, Mr. Edmonds, that Nelson would be turning in his grave.
I have said that it is the duty of government to make assessments of what might go wrong in future and to listen to what is happening daily. Those are both functions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, the other great unsung hero in defence of Britain's national interest is the BBC's monitoring unit at Caversham.
The BBC World Service is respected throughout the world, its audiences are increasing and it is meeting the challenges of new technology. There will always be a place for crackly, short-wave broadcasting. However, the World Service is increasingly widely available on local FM frequencies and online on the world wide web, as well as on satellite television.
The BBC is respected because it is independent of our state apparatus and because of the speed and accuracy of its news reporting. To achieve that, both national and World Service programmes depend not only on foreign correspondents, but on the 400 or so dedicated journalists and engineers, surviving on a tiny budget, at Caversham park.
Twenty-four hours a day, native language speakers listen to broadcasts throughout the world and make editorial judgments about the importance of some very obscure broadcasts. They nearly always get it right. It is not a secret service; it is not national propaganda. It is the epitome of fundamental freedom in a mature democracy. Almost all the information gathered is disseminated or archived. It is accessible throughout the world online.
When I visited the establishment only last week, it was extraordinary to talk to journalists in one of the original rooms, which was set up during the second world war, and to read the original typed records of wartime broadcasts—I dipped into the 1943 papers—while computer screens carried online information for assessment by a team of journalists.
I am glad to report that the Ministry of Defence routinely accesses that information, often not needing to wait for BBC interpreters because so many armed forces personnel are now expert linguists. The MOD demands and gets instant access to hour-by-hour information on the world's hot spots. I gather that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office prefers paper translations delivered by post a couple of days later.
Although I deplore the extravagance and crazy prioritising in some parts of the BBC, I salute the work of BBC Monitoring and its contribution to the security of our nation. Its total annual budget is under £20 million. Its two biggest customers are the MOD and the FCO, at about £7.5 million each, followed by the BBC World Service at £4.3 million. The MOD should resist the temptation to cut that vital contribution to the work of BBC Monitoring, which provides outstanding value for money.
We warmly support the Army's decision to require all units to take part in road safety training after the recent rise in fatal traffic accidents. Several years ago, I raised the question of military vehicle accident rates. I know that the Master Driver has taken the issue seriously. Please can the Minister, in his winding-up speech, clarify a recent statement by a Ministry of Defence spokeswoman, who claimed that accidents involving MOD personnel are below the national average? That directly conflicts with statistics that were published only a couple of years ago.
I declare my interest as president of the Salisbury Plain branch of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, which has a significant membership among Her Majesty's forces in


the area. We should all remember that it is usually drivers who cause accidents. Adverse weather conditions or poor engineering can also be to blame, but, more often, accidents are caused by young, inexperienced drivers, by inadequate training of drivers for the vehicle in question or, indeed, by inappropriate use of vehicles.
Therefore, we are glad that the defence road safety committee is taking such a serious line. Please will Ministers report to the House with an assessment of the benefits to the military of participation in road safety week at the beginning of May?
Another aspect of safety and personal security, which I must ask the Minister to address, concerns retired personnel, from both the military and the civil service. We expect military staff to be vigilant and to take appropriate precautions for their personal security. When they retire, they should reasonably expect anonymity and privacy. Therefore, I was alarmed when I heard that a number of elderly retired MOD employees have been approached at home by aggressive investigative journalists in connection with work that they did many years ago. That has happened to six of my constituents.
I understand that the names of retired personnel have been obtained by trawling through the papers that are available under the 30-year rule from the Public Record Office. There has been no attempt to delete the names of any of the people concerned. It is fair that Ministers and politicians abide by the 30-year rule, but I am doubtful whether Parliament or successive Governments ever intended that the names of individual employees should be disclosed in that way. There could be real hazards from more unscrupulous individuals and organisations.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the reference to the present investigation by Wiltshire police and Detective Superintendent Luckett of matters relating to Porton more than 30 years ago? If it is, there is another side to the story.

Mr. Key: It is not exclusively that. Some of the people have been approached with regard to that, but there are others who have been approached for other reasons and in connection with another investigation. It is an important problem and I ask Ministers to look at it sensitively.
Against all the odds, the professionalism, dedication and loyalty of armed forces personnel remain beyond question. The initial excitement and glamour of the strategic defence review has evaporated—indeed, it has left something of a hangover among the armed forces at all levels. The wives and families are still determined to follow the flag, but Ministers are on probation.
The Army Families Federation was pleased to hear that some of the £17 million withdrawn from the Defence Housing Executive budget has been put back and that Ministers have promised the earth by the end of 2005. Those Ministers should not be surprised that a degree of cynicism has crept in. The latest edition of "The Families Journal" asks:
Is this a breakable promise or an achievable commitment?
Writing in "Defence Review", the Chairman the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), said:
Fundamental to our ability to field armed forces which are among the best in the world is the quality of volunteers who make up those forces. The MOD has introduced several measures to improve the

lives of our servicemen and women and more are to follow. But the critical problems of undermanning and overstretch have not been solved. Indeed, the situation has almost certainly deteriorated since the SDR. The next twelve months must bring signs of improvement.
We agree.
Her Majesty's Opposition remain wholly loyal to our armed forces personnel, to their wives and families, and to the thousands of people in the civil service and in other support operations. We shall continue to hold Ministers to account, uncomfortable as that may be for them. That is nothing less than our duty to the House and to Her Majesty's forces.

Mr. John Smith: As an ex-service man—a volunteer—and someone who has long felt a great debt of gratitude to our armed forces for the opportunities that they gave me as a young man from a very traditional blue-collar, working-class background, it is a particular pleasure for me to speak in this debate on our armed forces personnel. After the earlier exchanges on magistrates courts, I am reluctant to go into too much detail, but I do wish to express my gratitude to the armed forces. Our services have given tens of thousands of British youngsters not only a second chance, but perhaps their first opportunity to develop self-respect, self-confidence and self-discipline. We should never lose sight of the forces crucial role in providing such an opportunity to very many people in our community.
Another reason why it is always a privilege to speak in defence debates is that I have one of the United Kingdom's largest military bases in my constituency—RAF St. Athan, which is certainly the largest Royal Air Force base. The base also has a very popular journal—the "Tathan"—which I recommend to all hon. Members.
RAF St. Athan provides employment for more than 4,000 service and civilian personnel, making it the biggest employer in my constituency. Hon. Members with the privilege of having a large military establishment in their constituency should always be mindful of the contributions that they make. RAF St. Athan contributes more than £50 million annually to the local economy, supports as many as 10,000 jobs in and out of the area, and plays a very valuable role in our community.
Another reason why I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate is that, with other hon. Members, I have the privilege of being a member of the United Kingdom's delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. The assembly gives us an opportunity to get direct, first-hand feedback and to see the respect in which all three of our forces are held around the world. Regardless of where in the world the assembly meets—but especially when we speak to military personnel from other countries—people from those countries express their respect for our armed forces. That respect is both an asset for the United Kingdom and a great tribute to our forces personnel.
I should like to do three things in this debate, the first of which is to pay tribute to the role of our service men and women around the world.
Secondly, I should like to deal with the fact that morale in the forces underpins not only the problems of retention and recruitment, but the military's prospects. Morale is the key to our forces' success, and it should be given careful consideration.
Thirdly, I should like to address some issues that directly affect our services personnel and their families. As an hon. Member with a large military establishment in my constituency, I realise that, although those issues are not always thought to be serious, they are becoming more numerous and reflect the changes in our society.
Wherever the delegation goes, we hear references to the British military. Not long ago, we were in the United States marine corps base, at Camp Pendleton, and saw the latest fighting techniques being developed to deal with the new threats confronting the world. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) described our inability to predict future trouble spots, but that is precisely the problem—we cannot predict future trouble spots. The world and the security environment have changed so much in the past 10 years that we shall have to reconfigure our forces and other resources to deal with the unexpected, not with the old predictable threat across the iron curtain.
When I spoke to the US marines, I was most struck by the tributes that they paid to the British service men and women who had worked with them. They looked particularly to our special forces to learn how best to operate. It was not an isolated incident.
An all-nation, all-party group went to Turkey, to review the Turkish army's lead presidential regiments. What were their first comments to us? They wanted to recognise and pay tribute to the contributions made by the British forces. Many of their officers had trained alongside British personnel.
Perhaps the best example of the esteem in which our forces are held worldwide—from India and China to anywhere that one might care to mention—occurred two years ago, when I went with the delegation to Moscow. We had a morning off and were on Red square, outside Lenin's mausoleum—where people from across what is now the Russian Federation still come to queue up. Two cars pulled up, and four members of the Black Watch stepped out, in full dress uniform—presumably they had that Saturday morning off duty—carrying their pipes and dirks. They started to play their bagpipes.
We were in the heart of the old Soviet empire—outside the Kremlin, on Red square—but the Russian people immediately recognised the pipes and the Black Watch. Hundreds of them started drifting out of the queue to stand around our service men, to listen to them play. Spontaneously, they started clapping—much to the distress of the red guards guarding the tomb, who came over to try to stop that wonderful spectacle.
My experience on Red square showed me just what a great asset we have in our forces. As hon. Members have said in our defence debates, we have probably the best forces in the world, even if, sadly, they are now some of the smallest. But they are still the best. We should all recognise the role that they play for us, and the role played by the families who support them. The House should do whatever it can to continue offering support to all of them.
As a country, we should also recognise that our forces' professionalism and international recognition are not only a military, but a strategic and foreign policy asset for the United Kingdom. I sometimes think that we do not sufficiently exploit that great asset, although we should.
As I said, our forces' morale is crucial. We must continue to debate undermanning and overstretch, and we should not lose sight of the effect that they have on

service families. That is not necessarily the most crucial issue, which is that our service men and women know that they are part of a professional and efficient force, that they are doing their job properly and that what they are doing is relevant to today's needs.
That is why it was disappointing to hear the hon. Member for Salisbury almost cast aside the strategic defence review. If there was something that needed to be done desperately when the Government came to power, it was to carry out a fundamental review of our military requirements for our armed forces' personnel.
It was becoming obvious that what our forces were doing was becoming increasingly irrelevant. There were understandable shortfalls, because nobody wanted to make the tough decisions about the reconfiguration of our forces to meet the new challenges. There were understandable misjudgments in terms of undermanning, the virtual absence of heavy lift and the collapse of the defence medical service. There were difficulties in terms of logistics for our forces in the field, and identifiable shortfalls were across the board. We could not maintain a large force in the front line because of the rundown. There was a 32 per cent. cut in real terms in defence expenditure at that time, so we will take no lessons from Conservative Members about defence spending.

Mr. Key: That canard has been running for three years now. If the hon. Gentleman sincerely believes what he says, why does he support continuing cuts?

Mr. Smith: We must provide services to meet our commitments throughout the world. This Government had the courage and vision to start to reconfigure those resources. We did that not to maintain the cold war warriors who were waiting for a Soviet invasion of western Europe—because that was what we were lumbered with. We needed a mobile force to react rapidly throughout the world to meet unpredictable problems, such as in Iraq and Kosovo.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman, in a typically lively speech, is wanting to have it both ways. He suggests that the Conservatives cut too far during the cold war—a view with which I have some sympathy—but then says that it is justifiable to cut further. He should not try to have his cake and eat it.

Mr. Smith: I made no attempt to justify any further cuts. The Government have asked the military—as they have asked everyone else—for efficiency savings. The figure is 3 per cent. over three years, compared with a 32 per cent. cut in real terms during the Conservatives' period of office.
Huge efficiencies can be made. I spent a little time in the Ministry of Defence when the review was taking place and we discovered all sorts of amazing things. For example, we had hundreds of horses stabled somewhere—presumably serving some core activity for the modern infantry and cavalry in 1998, one which I could not work out. We had trains lying in stock in mothballs throughout the country. No one had carried out a serious audit of the assets of the military in this country, even though those assets were gigantic. Do not tell me that there was not a duty on any Government to establish that the taxpayer was getting value for money.
I do not support further cuts in the defence budget, precisely because we live in an unpredictable world. The world may become more volatile, although all hon. Members will have been delighted to see that North and South Korea sat down recently, hopefully to push for some diplomatic solutions to the problems in that part of the world. The defence budget should be reviewed continually with that in mind.
Nothing did more for the morale of the service men and women than the strategic defence review. The professionals knew when what they were doing was irrelevant in the world and when what they did was making sense. They can switch from policing the streets of Pristina to engaging in full-scale battle in the middle east. That flexibility is one of the great strengths of our forces.
There is no greater tribute we could pay to our armed forces than to give them a clear direction of what their policy tasks are throughout the world. We must provide them with the resources to do their job properly, and clear policy commitments are needed. That is not what we had in 1997, or anything like it. Unfortunately, the Conservative party could not take the tough decisions that were required at the end of the cold war. There was a peace dividend, and we had to see some decline in defence budgets, as we have seen throughout Europe—although I am concerned that some countries in Europe have cut too far, given the international commitments of NATO.
Under the Tories, there was death by a thousand cuts. They sliced a bit off here and there, but they did not sit back and ask what was required. Nothing did more to damage the morale of armed forces personnel than those last few years of Conservative Government. I say that not only as a politician who has the privilege of representing a military base, but as an ex-service man.
I am not the only ex-service man in the House—unfortunately, the numbers are declining—but that gives me an insight into the way in which our service men and women think. There is nothing more important for them than to know that what they do counts and works. That was not happening under the Conservatives.
We have seen big improvements in morale, and if we carry out the next, more difficult stage—the full implementation of the strategic defence review—there will be further improvements. There have been problems of slippage and many of the much-needed changes have not taken place. As the process continues, morale will increase greatly.
During our visit to the States, we came across some interesting research by the Rand corporation on overstretch and tours of duty. There is pressure on families, and we must tackle their problems which are unlike those of families in the community. However, the research did not establish a correlation between increased tours of duty and retention in the forces. In fact, there was an indication that the opposite was the case; that our service men and women were proud to serve this country as often as they could. That can often lift morale and increase pride. As my hon. Friend the Minister rightly said, we need to get the balance right.
I am concerned about the day-to-day problems faced by our service personnel. I fear that the bureaucracy of the MOD and the traditional military culture make it difficult to solve simple problems, because something is against the rules or does not fit in with how we have done things before.
Service life and outlook are changing. As a young service man, I married a service woman 30 years ago and we started a family. Our priorities were different from today's. The services reflect what is happening in society. It is nonsense to think that the moral code can be frozen in time. To have an effective moral code and standards in the military, we need to keep ahead of the game. That is the secret. We must keep up with society at large. Values in the military are dramatically different from what they were 30 years ago or, as I know from my father's generation, 30 years before that.
The challenge is to maintain high, though changing, standards. Service families, by and large, do not want to live in married quarters. Increasingly, they want to buy their own home and allow their families to be more and more independent and mix with civilian families. We must see that as a challenge, not a threat. Increasingly, they want their children to go to local schools, and we must help to facilitate that.
I get a little worried about cases in which it appears that the intransigence of the military prevents us from making progress. I have written to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about some of them. It is usually the wife or the mum—the head of the family in the home—and not the service man who comes to us.
Mrs. Bailey told me that her husband, Sergeant Bailey, at RAF St. Athan, volunteered to go on a final posting as a trainer in Brize Norton unaccompanied, which saves the force money. Their child had been supported at a day school for some time through the school fees scheme. At a critical point in the child's education, because of some RAF rule, the fact that Sergeant Bailey volunteered to go unaccompanied meant that the school fees were cut.
I know that the vile has been there for a long time, but it does not take account of the increasing trend of people wanting to settle outside married quarters. If we do not change, we will have even more trouble recruiting and retaining. We must focus on the detail of everyday family life.
Colette Howard, another service wife, chose to live in married quarters at RAF St. Athan. She was happy to move with her husband's postings and to set up home afresh every three or four years. The real source of the problem is the sale of MOD housing stock, which has been a minor disaster for service family life. She is now being moved from house to house within the married quarters at the station, presumably because of general policy decisions made in Whitehall. Havoc is being caused in the day-to-day life of service families.
There may be a temptation, in the wider debate, to dismiss such problems as trivial, but they could create difficulties in recruitment and retention. We have to tackle the smaller problems or we will lose more and more service families as values change.
I have had many opportunities to visit military establishments in my year at the Ministry of Defence and as a member of the NATO delegation. I remember reading that the Royal Marines had a problem with recruits, because they could not wear their boots. Half the youngsters had never worn a pair of shoes in their life: they had always worn trainers. Within a couple of days, the 17 and 18-year-olds were unable to walk. They could not even wear a pair of strong shoes.
The Marines had the good sense to say, "Hang on a minute, we've got a few months' notice, why don't we send the youngsters a pair of boots in the post and ask


them to go for a jog in the park in them each day?" What a difference it made. Nothing amazes me more than to see what those youngsters do for their country at the end of their training. The pride and self-esteem have not changed in the 30 years since I was in the services or the 60 years since my father was. That is the key. The best way of keeping that pride and high morale is to back our military at every opportunity.
It has been said that this country does not fully exploit the asset that we have. Alliances are changing, with the European defence identity complementing NATO, which is unquestionably the key alliance that has served us so well for so long. People sometimes make disparaging remarks about the changes. We were on the tail end of some disparaging remarks by the hon. Member for Salisbury when he went to Washington recently. I think that he did our forces and the country—as well as his party—a great disservice in the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee.
I have no doubt that we should be at the forefront of any debate about the future defence requirements of the European Union.
Our forces have the best reputation. They are the most professional and can undoubtedly make the best contribution. The best thing that we can do for our armed forces personnel is to ensure that during the debate about Europe we are at the forefront of developments, instead of being xenophobic and bashing anything to do with Europe because of internal party requirements. The British armed forces should be leading any developments that take place in Europe.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman is referring to remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), but I can assure him that the views expressed by my hon. Friend in the United States are shared by Congressmen and Senators. A lively debate is going on and should not be stifled. It has nothing to do with differences of opinion on Europe, but with the question of the alliance and how it should maintain its cohesiveness.

Mr. Smith: Much concern was expressed about the effect that the contribution in Washington has had on the whole debate on the future defence needs of Europe. Most importantly, it undermined this country's opportunity to ensure that our armed forces lead the way, as they have done in the past and as I am sure they will do for a long time in the future.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) falls into that increasingly exclusive category of hon. Members who have actually served in the armed forces. Therefore when he speaks, as he has today with great sincerity and some passion, the House would do well to listen to what he has to say, especially about the change in attitude between the time when he first enlisted and today.
I confess to some reservations about the fact that we have abandoned the days of single service debates, and address these issues on the basis of a somewhat artificial split between personnel and procurement. Indeed, some

of my reservations are confirmed by the light attendance in the House this afternoon. It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of any one of the armed services without drawing together the issues of personnel and procurement. We are engaged in something of an experiment and I hope that it will be carefully reviewed. If it is concluded that we could better serve our responsibilities by going back to single service debates, I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to that view.
If I concentrate more on the Royal Air Force than on the other two services this afternoon, it is because I claim some front-line experience—if I may put it like that—of the RAF. Today's debate comes hard on the heels of a visit I made to RAF Leuchars in my constituency on Monday, by kind permission of Ministers. The future of that station is now assured because it is to be host in due course to three squadrons of Eurofighter, or Typhoon, as we must learn to call it.
On Monday, as on so many other occasions when I have met personnel from all three services, I was impressed by the professionalism and commitment of all those I met, from the station commander, Group Captain Peter Coker, down to the newest recruit. What was notable, in a station that has traditionally been associated with air defence, was an understanding at all levels of the changed environment in which the RAF has to operate and of the need to maximise deployability. The days of the RAF staying at home and going abroad only occasionally have long since gone. People understand and appreciate that the way in which the RAF fulfils its obligations will have to reflect that change.
The strategic defence review, which we debated, in part at least, only a few weeks ago, formally adopted an expeditionary strategy. However, that was no more than a theoretical recognition of what was already increasingly the practice. The word "expeditionary" in that context can easily—although not entirely—be reflected in the synonym "overseas". Our armed services have to have the means by which they can operate effectively overseas.
If an expeditionary strategy is to work, it needs to have the capacity for much more rapid deployment than we have previously had. Self-evidently, the effectiveness of personnel depends on the effectiveness and speed of their deployment. That is why a decision is urgently needed on the provision in the strategic defence review that the United Kingdom would acquire four C-17s or their equivalent. Debate is no doubt raging in the Ministry of Defence, and is certainly being carried on in national newspapers, with speculation falling on speculation.
I have three questions for the Minister on that issue. Is it the case that the Government intend to acquire not four aircraft but three, and not necessarily by outright purchase, while at the same time maintaining an interest in the airbus derivative with which British Aerospace is associated? What is the reason for delaying the decision? Has it anything to do with money and the Chancellor of the Exchequer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, I am an innocent in such matters, as the House will appreciate. I ask merely for the purpose of better informing the debate.
A less urgent decision, but one that may be significant for the expeditionary strategy, is the question of the roll on/roll off ferries, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). If the forces do not have those ferries, they may be able to get their personnel to


the area of deployment, but they will not able to transport the equipment necessary to sustain them when they get there.
It would be extreme short-termism to sacrifice shipbuilding capacity on the Clyde for a temporary financial gain, and I do not believe that we would have to break the law on competitive bidding in Europe for civilian projects. It must be feasible to put together a package of ownership, operation, crewing and command that would make those vessels legitimately military and not civilian. If they are military in nature, that does not preclude competition, but it entitles the Government to take into account issues other than price when making the decision. It would be foolish to rush into the wrong decision, and much better to take time to reach a decision that satisfies the defence requirement and maintains a viable shipbuilding capacity. If the Secretary of State did talk about metal bashing—I noticed that he shook his head when that remark was attributed to him—it would have been a short-sighted view. How are we going to get the type 45 if we have no metal-bashers around? How will we be able to build ships to meet our naval commitments if we do not have some of those who were dismissively described as metal bashers?

Mr. John Wilkinson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a most important point about shipbuilding and European Union rules about intervention funding. Is not it the case that in matters of international defence we should not be hidebound by rules of that kind? The national interest should prevail, and that would be good for Scotland and for the country as a whole.

Mr. Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, the treaty of Rome makes provisions that have the effect of excluding defence from the matters that have to be dealt with as part of the common market. I do not believe that it would be impossible to find a package that would fulfil the criteria that I mentioned and place those vessels in the military category.
The hon. Gentleman raises the subject of Europe in one category, but it arises in another. The UK armed forces now rarely act on their own. If a European security and defence identity is successfully created, the opportunities—indeed, the obligations—for joint operations with European allies will increase. I can claim that there is no greater enthusiast in the House of Commons than myself for integration in defence in Europe within the framework of NATO. I also hope that those who have heard me in the past remember that I have never contemplated what is sometimes described as a European army.
I do not believe that any country can abandon sovereignty over its own armed forces and the responsibility for deciding when and if they go to war. However, a European security and defence identity, if successfully created, will have long-term consequences for personnel in our armed services. Indeed, it may have long-term consequences for the structure and composition of our armed services if force specialisation and interoperability are more widely adopted than they have been.
From the standpoint of the interests and the welfare of our armed services, I do not believe that a European security and defence identity will bear proper fruit unless

it is capability led. Only a commitment to capability will provide comfort for those in the United States Congress—they have already been mentioned—who have expressed reservations. Indeed, only a fully capable security and defence identity will be able to fulfil the expectations attributed to it. Conversely, a weak or inadequate European security and defence identity would damage not merely Europe but NATO, too.
I reaffirm the fact that my support depends on capability, not architecture. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that if we get the capability right, the architecture will almost certainly follow. I am equally strongly of the view that the converse is by no means certain.
We cannot call on others to reach the necessary level of expenditure and commitment unless we are willing and able to do so ourselves. As part of that, we need a successful strategy for overstretch and undermanning. Sometimes, we talk of those as though they were two separate issues, but as the hon. Member for Salisbury clearly demonstrated, they are inextricably linked.
I do not take the view that the way to deal with that problem is always to reduce commitments. If one reduces commitments, there is a price to be paid—one may gain financially, but one may well lose political influence. My answer to those who ask, "What about expenditure?", is to say that senior budget holders in all three armed services will say that the so-called 3 per cent. efficiency saving is the element of the present financial regime that causes them the greatest grief. If the Government are serious about ensuring that our armed services have the financial support and equipment to deal with overstretch and undermanning, they could take a financial step that would be received with extraordinary gratitude and acknowledgement throughout the armed services, and bring an end to that so-called efficiency saving.
On 22 February, when we last debated these issues, the Minister for the Armed Forces told the House of the various theatres from which we were withdrawing forces. Withdrawals of that type make sense only if the integrity of missions is not compromised as a result. I hope that we will not fall into the trap of saying that we have done better because we have brought people back. Often, maintaining the number of personnel, or putting more in, will be necessary.
I have Kosovo in mind. As we know, the failure to provide adequate civil administration there has thrown much more weight on the military presence. I have referred before to the continuing scandal of the failure to provide sufficient civilian police. That failure not only has consequences for the numbers there, but increases the pressure on those who are there. One would be glad to know—not in detail, but in principle—that the Government have some contingency plans for what has been loosely described in other quarters as a "spring offensive" of those warring factions in Kosovo who have not yet been willing to settle down.
We have a significant military presence in about 24 countries. Not all of them are as dangerous and difficult as Kosovo, but they require long absences from home base, station or port, for members of all three services. On a Thursday afternoon, I hesitate to burden the House with too many statistics, but it is worth going back to the 24-month standard, which was referred to earlier. In the Royal Armoured Corps, the interval


between operational tours in 1999–2000 is 12 months. In the Royal Artillery, it is 18 months, in the Royal Engineers, seven months, in the Royal Signals, six months, and in the infantry, 15 months. Anecdotally, it has been said that some signallers have been away from home for three Christmases in a row. That emphasises the degree of personal sacrifice that is necessarily involved in being in operations of that sort.
On manpower shortages, in 1999 Royal Navy manpower was 4.6 per cent. down on what it should be, but that was worse than the previous year. Army manpower was 5.3 per cent. down, which again was worse. Only the Royal Air Force, with manpower 2.3 per cent. down on what it should be, was doing rather better than it had in the previous 12 months.
Undermanning has been well documented. The trained requirement of the Army is 105,300, but we are at least 5,000 short. The Secretary of State has said—I think that the Minister repeated this in his opening speech—that the requirement will be achieved by 2005. When the adjutant-general gave evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, he said of 1999–2000:
this year I expect to meet virtually 100 per cent. of my recruiting targets for both officers and men and between 95 and 100 per cent. of my output training targets.
If he achieves those targets, it will be a considerable sea change from previous performance. The Army Training and Recruiting Agency missed five out of six key targets in 1998–99. It had an achievement rate—now that targeting is included—of about 17 per cent. against the six targets that had been set.
The deputy chief executive of the agency told me in a letter that part of the difficulty was
the effects of the increased level of operational commitment by the Field Army
which were continuing to carry through into recruitment. He also said that insufficient recruitment in previous years had resulted in shortfalls for officers qualified for field service.
Many of the present difficulties had their origins in decisions taken some time ago. The Government have been entitled to enjoy some sort of honeymoon—I shall return to that—and turning this ship round, like turning an oil tanker round, is sometimes rather difficult. I do not wish to be over-harsh on the Government, but they may reach a point at which they will run out of excuses if they try to say that everything is the fault of those who went before.
Some of what I have said brings into sharp relief the way in which overstretch filters down to affect all levels of armed services operations. In June 1999, nearly half of Army personnel and 72 per cent. of Land Command personnel were on operations. At the same time, 476 RAF pilots were serving outside the mainland. In 1998–99, in a number of RAF squadrons the 140 nights away from home threshold was reached by more than 30 per cent. of personnel. On a more immediate and personal note from the point of view of those who were subjected to it, over the 1999–2000 Christmas and new year period—a traditional time for families to spend together, and the armed services are no different—35 per cent. of the Army's trained strength was serving abroad. That was 3,500 more than in 1998–99. The average soldier is

"out of bed" 20 per cent. of the time, with some divisions suffering significantly higher percentages, as has been acknowledged.
I understand that the Government have commissioned an Army retention study, which has been mentioned today I think, and a number of other reports. I hope that those will be put into the Library and the public domain, not kept secret. They may not fall within the provisions of the freedom of information legislation, which is rather less vigorous than I should have liked, but I hope that—to enlist the support of those who have an interest in the matter—the Government will be willing to make the information that the reports contain available on a wider basis.
The hon. Member for Salisbury rightly mentioned divorce. He was also right to rely on those figures, as they were elicited by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) and myself in a series of questions to the Government. They are yet another index of the problems caused for those who serve in the armed services.
It is not just the Army that has had difficulties. Between August 1999 and January 2000, the Navy, the Air Force, the Royal Marines, the Territorial Army, the Naval Reserves and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force all saw a net outflow of trained personnel. In some respects, that was due to demographic and economic trends, which have worked against the training and manning agencies. Yet overstretch, inadequate or unavailable equipment or late delivery of large procurement projects have also had a significant effect.
The chief executive of the RAF Training Group Defence Agency wrote to me explaining why it did not achieve the target that it was obliged to achieve. Fast-jet pilot training had suffered because operational commitments took qualified flying instructors away from training. There were problems with aircraft serviceability, not enough trainers because of operations and not enough serviceable planes to train on. On the multi-engine programme, student numbers had to be reduced because of the delayed delivery of the C130J, and the front line could not absorb such pilots as there were. Instructor shortages resulted in the cancellation of navigator training courses, and some navigator recruits were switched to pilot training to make up for shortfalls elsewhere.
That, and much that has been said this afternoon—about which there is strong common ground throughout the House—illustrates the nature of the difficulty. It illustrates how, year on year, financial reductions and sometimes—to be blunt—poor management and decision making in the past have cumulatively contributed to our present difficulties.
The Government rightly began with the strategic defence review. They could reasonably argue, during that process and for some little time afterwards, that their concentration on that was paramount and justified. However, we have now passed from the period of conception to the period of delivery. The responsibility is now the Government's, and we will all be looking at whether the Government's aspirations are matched by their achievements.

Laura Moffatt: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I respected his contribution to the


Select Committee on Defence and miss him now that he is no longer on it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aah!"] It was extremely helpful to the new members on the Committee to have anchors—members who knew the subject inside out—to help us understand the issues.
This is an interesting area, particularly when one comes new to it. I have found some defence terminology extremely difficult to get to grips with. We often talk in the Select Committee, and wherever the Select Committee goes to visit the armed forces, about UAVs, Paveways, DSO and bars. I find the subject of today's debate much easier to get to grips with, as it is about what those who serve in our armed forces mean to us and how much they are a force for good in our nation.
Some right hon. and hon. Members say that our armed forces must be held in special regard, and I believe that to be true. But it troubles me, particularly having been a nurse, when people say to me as a Member of Parliament, "Of course, you don't quite understand how things work in the armed forces." They talk in a very patronising way, as if not having served in the armed forces means that one cannot understand how they work. People have done that to nurses for many years. They call them wonderful angels, but the reality is that nurses, just like those in the armed forces—although we respect and understand that extra mile that we want our armed forces to go for us—want to be treated decently. We all want to be offered the advantages that other people have. Why should we not?
People sometimes argue that the armed forces should have a different system of discipline from that available to other members of our community. That argument cannot be supported. Why should they not be treated decently, with proper remuneration? Their contribution should be reflected in the remuneration they receive and in the way in which we view them. Their backgrounds should be respected and their rights protected. Their families should be decently housed, their children should receive a good education and there should be first-class health care for all. Their equipment must not let them down, and they should have time to recuperate between tours of duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who is no longer in the Chamber, referred to that. However, having visited many of our armed forces in the United Kingdom and abroad, I understand that part of the reason why personnel want to be there is that they like being kept busy and active. Striking the right balance is important. That is why getting things right for our service people's families back home is so important. The Select Committee has considered many of those matters. Those are the issues that I particularly enjoy, and we have tackled them in depth.
The Government are making enormous progress. We are tackling the things that most trouble our armed forces abroad. Why should a serving soldier be worried because his wife or partner is concerned that their daughter is moving school for the fourth time? That means that he cannot concentrate on his job. Why should we allow that to happen? The Government are actively tackling that issue to ensure that we offer decent education and change the way in which we allow accommodation to be kept for service families even though there may be changes for the person serving.
No matter where we went—and particularly in the Falkland Islands—the question of access to telephones drove people crazy, I was in the Falklands for just a week, and I felt completely isolated from my family. I had to

buy a £10 phone card, which was chewed up instantly. As soon as we got home, however, Ministers responded and enormous changes were made to the amount of time that people were allowed to telephone home and use computers to send e-mail. Those are the things that make a difference for our armed forces.
I have already mentioned discipline. Some people argue that the Armed Forces Discipline Bill will change the way in which we do business and destroy discipline within the armed forces. I cannot think of anything more untrue. We should all be subject to the same rules and regulations. If I were at home and my husband was in trouble for some reason, I would want to be sure that proper procedures were being adhered to, rather than his being taken behind the latrines and told off. We must ensure that those in the armed forces are subject to the same rules as the rest of us.
The armed forces are special—we cannot get away from that. Respecting every member of the armed forces is crucial, irrespective of where and who they are, whatever their gender, sexual orientation or ethnic origin. If there is anything in our society that should be a meritocracy, it must be our armed forces.
We must ensure that everyone has a career path through the services. I am heartened by the way in which the national vocational qualification system has been embraced by the armed forces, and the learning credits and extended learning credits have been taken up so successfully. I believe that if people are fit for the armed forces and get a good education, they are fit for life itself.
We must be careful not to forget about people once they are in the armed forces. We must set targets to improve their work, and the Government have been brave about that: for example, they have set targets for the number of people from different backgrounds in the forces. There is no better way to be judged, because these are not just weasel words—the Government are striving to achieve the targets that they set, and I am very pleased to hear that, in many ways, they are doing just that.
I return to the important question of service families. We must ensure that our service men and women are able to settle down and do the jobs demanded of them. We are struggling to recover from the appalling mess that resulted from the previous Government's housing sell-off. Few members of the Select Committee disagree about that. I too pay tribute to the Army Families Federation, whose excellent reports are a superb source of information, for the Select Committee and all hon. Members, about the problems faced by army families.
The federation has recommended that the relatives of serving men and women abroad should be able to make decisions about what happens to their homes. Why should people serving in Kosovo, for instance, have to worry about things back home, such as moving house? Why should not their spouses or partners be able to deal with that? I support the recommendation wholeheartedly.
Unlike the previous Government, this Government are able to look holistically at the problems faced by all our communities, including the armed forces. Housing and forward planning for our service personnel is crucial. I was heartened that the housing Green Paper recognised for the first time that some service personnel should be considered homeless. The way forward must be to talk to local authorities and housing associations. I am not keen on the phrase "joined-up government", but it must be right to involve other Departments in resolving those people's difficulties.
The Select Committee deals with many matters, but I am especially interested in the defence medical services. I was recently lobbied by people campaigning for Crawley hospital, who told me about their experiences talking to Ministers, so I—and other Select Committee colleagues—understand the strength of feeling involved.
The Select Committee often revisits the question whether the defence medical services will recover from their almost impossible position. However, I believe that that recovery is beginning. There is now proper co-operation between those services and the national health service to resolve their joint problems. The House cannot pretend that the two services can be separated and that they have nothing to do with each other. I think that that has sometimes been the temptation, but we must consider the two services together.
The Select Committee report was a little firm on the question of the Territorial Army, about which the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has been most exercised. Many members of the Committee supported the hon. Gentleman in his work to ensure that the Government understood the worth of the Territorial Army. In my own town, the 103 Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers regiment has undergone painful and enormous change, but it has said that that has been to its advantage, as its TA personnel are used more effectively and are more involved in regimental activities.
However, we must ensure that the Territorial Army gets the training days that it needs. They are crucial if the TA is to play its part. Its members are keen to work alongside their full-time counterparts, so it is vital that they get the necessary training.
There has been an enormous upturn in recruitment to the armed forces. The success of the recently introduced taster days prompts me to suggest that all three services should offer work experience. I do not know whether other hon. Members are like me in allowing young people into their offices for two weeks so that they can see how the House works. I cannot take them everywhere, but I can give them a good idea of what it is to be a Member of Parliament. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will listen to the suggestion that work experience might give young people a better idea of service life.
The people in our armed forces enthuse me and make me willing to sit for hours in the Select Committee meetings to make sure that we get right the way that they do their business, as we are in business on their behalf. We must also remember those who have served before, and I am keen to recognise the contribution of women, especially in the second world war. Important fundraising efforts are in hand for a memorial to those women who served in the forces and to those who contributed in other ways to the war effort. I have done some fundraising with the women's section of the British Legion at Lowfield Heath. They are wonderful women and keen to raise some cash for the memorial.

Mr. Cohen: I strongly support the campaign for a memorial to the women involved, in all sorts of ways, in the second world war. Is not there a case for putting that memorial on the empty plinth in Trafalgar square?

Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion, which I was too bashful to make myself.

That is exactly where the memorial should go, and I know that Madam Speaker supports the campaign. I hope that our wishes come true.
In conclusion, two and half years is not a long time for the Government to examine the armed forces. I have been bowled over by the efficiency and pleasantness of our service personnel—and by how tough they can be when the chips are down. It is a lesson for us all. Having learned what went on in the 18 years before this Government came to power, I know that, if I were a serving member of the armed forces, I would prefer to serve under a Labour Government.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) was frank enough to say, "I come new to it." I think the House will agree that she presented her case in an attractive and enthusiastic way. She said—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has recently left the Chamber—that she was speaking for those on the Labour Benches. Sadly, those Benches were almost deserted. I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), "It's a pretty depressing debate, isn't it?"
The hon. Lady has paid tribute to our armed forces, including all those personnel whom she has met during her work on the Select Committee on Defence. I am delighted that she is finding that work enjoyable and interesting, even without the presence of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). As a good and loyal member of the Labour party—no doubt she was provided with a party brief—she had to do her duty and attack the Opposition and then say how wonderful everything is going now. All the armed forces personnel whom she has met, and whom she admires for their training, professionalism and skills, were trained when the Conservative party was in power. Her time, and the assessment of her legacy and her party's and Government's legacy, are yet to come.
It is easy to make political jibes across the Chamber. I have a slight personal interest in the matter because people have been kind enough to pay some tribute to what we Conservatives tried to do during our time in office. When I was Secretary of State for Defence, I was never in any doubt that all those sitting on the Benches behind me gave a high priority to the cause of defence. I knew that they would be anxious to ensure that defence was properly supported. I made sure that it was, in the face of quite sustained criticism from Labour Members.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) got himself in quite a muddle. I could not work out whether he was in favour of more or fewer cuts. He referred to the overall reductions that had been made by the Conservative Government. In his rather tortuous arguments, he eventually remembered that we saw the end of the cold war, that Germany had been unified, that the Warsaw pact had collapsed, and that as a result there were certain differences in strategic defence then from when we came into power. I remember the changes that we made. I remember also that I was attacked strongly by Labour Members for not going a lot further.
The enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Crawley is infectious, and she tried to encourage the House to believe that things are going rather well. I sat in my place for a couple of hours waiting to contribute to the debate


because I fear that the hon. Lady's view is incorrect. I am seriously worried about the state of our armed forces. She chided me implicitly. She said that she had come completely new to these matters and perhaps suggested that it would be condescending if anybody said, "I served in the armed forces and somehow that gives me superiority in the debate." I accept that that would be wrong. Everybody has his or her contribution to make.
As a nurse, the hon. Lady brings relevant experience to the debate in terms of the defence medical services, but it is not a bad thing if one or two Members have some experience of the services. I know the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, and we have taken part in certain recreational activities together. I have affection for him. However, on reading "Dod", it is clear to me that no Defence Minister has served in the armed forces. Nor can I find in "Dod" any one of them who took any interest in defence after entering the House. Their interests are listed and they are perfectly respectable, but not one of them has previously been involved in defence. It is interesting also to see the pecking order in the Cabinet and the position of the Secretary of State for Defence. Does not the message go out to our armed forces that the Government do not approach defence with the priority and importance that were previously attached to it?
None of these things is an overriding argument. However, every Minister, as did the hon. Member for Crawley, pays a warm tribute to our armed forces. They say that they are wonderful and refer to their professionalism. They add that they are admired throughout the world. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan told us of the countries and places he has visited. He told a story about the Black Watch in Red square. The excellence of our armed forces does not come about by accident. It is the result of an effective recruitment policy, an effective training policy and the tradition of military conduct and training that has been handed down over generations, on which our armed forces are built. These elements account for their standing, and without a doubt they are a critically important and precious national asset.
However, I believe that that asset is at risk. It is bound to be at risk. If we have forces that do not have adequate time for training, being put in situations where their families will rebel, causing them to choose between their service or their families, and if they are not being given adequate time for recreation, it is not necessary to be a long-serving member of the armed forces to recognise that the pressures will lead to personnel leaving the services. So often, we lose the best and the most skilled.
The Army marches, but not necessarily on generals or privates. The key to the Army is the core of trained lieutenants, captains, young majors, sergeant majors, sergeants and corporals. They are the people with the long service. The average service in the Army is about five or six years. Of course, not everyone serves for that time. Many squaddies or privates serve a three-year tour, while others will serve for 15 or 20 years, or more. They are the key to the Army, and they must be retained.
It is often asked, "How are we doing on retention and wastage?" The question is asked on the basis of those who are leaving and those who are joining. Unless we have regard to the quality of those who have left, the answer does not mean a thing.
There is a turnover of squaddies or private soldiers. They are young men who join, get some experience and move on to another career or activity. Over the years they have always made a huge contribution to our armed services. That is fine. However, if at one end we are taking in entirely untrained and inexperienced people while at the other we are losing all those with experience and skills, we are heading only one way.
I can reassure the Minister that he will not find that happening today or next week. The process will continue for a while but eventually we shall find the edifice beginning to crumble. In three or four years' time, right hon. and hon. Members will ask—I shall not, because I shall not be here—"How did we get into this mess?" It is not enough to make enthusiastic noises. In addition, the Minister will have to make some tough decisions. I agree very much with what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said about resources.
In his enthusiastically vague contribution, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan said that he was not in favour of any more cuts. But the Government whom he thought he was supporting by making that remark are imposing cuts at present. The 3 per cent. year-on-year efficiency saving has been imposed by the Treasury, and I was one of the first to suffer from its use of that blunt instrument. When the Government have considered every saving that the Treasury can identify and all its arguments on where savings can be made, they come to the end of the line. When they and no one else can think of any other savings to make, they say that there will be a 3 per cent. efficiency saving. Nobody knows where it will come from. Much of it is made by pretty creative accounting of so-called gains and savings and one has to be quite a psephologist to understand how such calculations are made.
If the savings are not genuine or if they cannot be found, they represent cuts. If they are made when increasing commitments are taken on, we will head in a very dangerous direction. The Minister and his colleagues are all new to this subject and they are having to face these problems for the first time. However, the sad experience of defence is that it is incredibly difficult to drop a commitment and quite easy to take on new ones.
One only has to consider how long we have been in Cyprus. Whenever our forces are sent anywhere, we think that it will be just for a short time. When troops were dispatched to Northern Ireland, Lord Callaghan did not think that he was making a 30-year arrangement. However, such arrangements have a habit of enduring and new problems arise.
People sometimes say that we need not worry because the world is stable and new problems will not arise, When I introduced the measures in "Options for Change"—a bad title, but a well-organised plan—I was interviewed by a BBC reporter. At that time the Berlin wall was coming down, the Warsaw pact was collapsing and peace reigned in the world. We made the changes that we did, but I was challenged for not going further. The BBC reporter asked me why we were keeping such a substantial number of armed forces and why we were spending more than £20 billion. He said, "What is the threat that you think we are now supposed to be guarding against, when all the threats that used to exist now seem to have been resolved?" I replied that the threat was the unexpected, and a week later Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait—the unexpected had happened.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) pointed out, no intelligence prepared us for the invasion. We had no more warning of it than we did over the Falklands. When the unexpected happens, the Ministry of Defence has to perform and our forces have to be ready, trained and available to meet whatever challenge we decide it necessary in the national interest to confront.
I have described the background and my experience. They explain why I am acutely worried about the current position. I intervened when the Minister for the Armed Forces spoke to ask him when we would reach full manning levels for the Army. It is now 2000, and the plan for manning has already slipped, but I was told that we shall reach full manning levels in 2005.
I served under Baroness Thatcher. She had a very good reply when ideas were put to her. Someone would argue that years one and two of a project would be pretty difficult, that year three might also be a charge on the Exchequer, but that matters would be highly satisfactory in years four and five and the Exchequer would then be rewarded for its investment. She used to say that years four and five never come. When I heard that we should be all right in five years, I knew for certain that the Army will not have full manning levels next year, the year after, the year after or—God help us—the year after that. If the Government think that there will be no trouble and that perfect peace will rule in the world for the next five years, that shows just how serious the position is.
Things are even worse than that, however. The Government have reduced commitments a bit and things are muddling along even though I have the acute fear that we are losing trained and skilled people. The trouble is that, in three or four years, the position will be different; it is not static. Our armed forces will be less capable and stuck in a vicious circle. If the Government cannot take the necessary steps so that the armed forces can resolve the manning issue quickly, the problem could deteriorate seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury pointed out, the Select Committee warned us about that:
The problems of undermanning and overstretch have not been solved and the position in the past year has almost certainly deteriorated.
That means that in the Balkans, the Falklands, Cyprus, Germany, Northern Ireland or wherever it may be, sergeants, captains, flight lieutenants and other officers will begin to wonder whether they will have to spend their fourth Christmas away from their families or whether they will have to spend more time away from a new-born child. They will be forced to take decisions, and they will leave the services. The commanding officer then has to go down the line to ask someone else to take on extra duties. That person may have been thinking of staying, but may suddenly decide that he cannot take on extra responsibilities. Gradually and steadily, the problem escalates.
The hon. Member for Crawley said that she thought things were going quite well. When I was a Minister, I tried to establish tour intervals of 24 months. When they reached intervals of 17 and 18 months, I became worried. I checked with the Library on the current figures for tour intervals and I could not believe them: they are unsustainable. If people have to go on unaccompanied tours at such short intervals, only one thing can result—a serious deterioration in the capability of the armed forces.
As I have some experience of these matters, I hope that the Minister will convey the tenor of my remarks to his colleagues. The Government face more of a problem than the Minister for the Armed Forces seemed to appreciate in his speech. The tradition of loyalty and service of the armed forces acts, in certain circumstances, to their own disadvantage. If one asks them to undertake a new responsibility, their training means that they stand to attention, salute and say, "If you tell me to do it, sir, that is what will be done." They do not stand up, have a really good argument and then say, "For once, we shall say no." That is a problem. They will always undertake new responsibilities and the price that they pay to carry them out may not always be apparent to Ministers and may not always be set out as clearly as it should be. The Ministry of Defence and the armed services do not want to appear unwilling to undertake their responsibilities, but that can sometimes lead a serious deterioration in their capabilities.
Furthermore, I could not believe the number of reservists—Territorial Army—currently on active service in Bosnia or the Balkans. Of course, reservists are useful—occasionally, in an emergency. However, they are reserves and the fact that we are employing them permanently offers the clearest illustration of how serious the shortfall is.
I realise that it is easy enough to set out the problems, but much harder to resolve them. However, Ministers will get the blame, if my fears come to pass; the Treasury will not say, "It was really all our fault." Ministers will be blamed and that precious national asset of which they are currently the trustees will have been destroyed, thus endangering the security of our country.
We were challenged when we disputed the idea that, with 3 per cent. expenditure savings, we can continue to reduce the defence budget, while maintaining our commitments without enough trained and properly equipped forces. The loss of trained and skilled personnel poses a serious threat, especially so soon after the review, which itself was not the great achievement claimed by the Government.
The Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and the Prime Minister should hold fundamental and urgent discussions. If other contributions are wanted, I should be willing to play my part. This should not be a party political battle. We are talking about our armed forces, who have served our country over the years, whichever party was in government. They need to be properly protected and to have their future capacity assured.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In his significant and serious speech, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) recalled Lord Callaghan sending troops to Northern Ireland. At the end of the 1969 Session, I went to Lord Callaghan to argue that the Scottish regiments should not be sent to Northern Ireland. At his most formidable and avuncular, Jim said, "Don't worry—only 16 weeks and we will sort it out." Well, 16 weeks have become 30 years and will possibly be much longer. That confirms the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that we can never know what is around the corner.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, I should point out that I am an honorary member of the mess of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards—my former


national service regiment, the Royal Scots Greys, in which I served as a gunner. That relates to the point I want to make. During my visit to Bosnia two years ago, I had a long session with the sergeants' mess at the suggestion of a colonel. They told me that it was a bit much—their language was stronger—that, during their home leave in Fallingbostel, Luneburg or elsewhere in Germany, they were paid less, because of overseas allowances, for the time that they served through all the difficulties in Bosnia than if they had been in Germany.
I realise that overseas allowances are a complex problem. However, although I argued that we should never have gone to Bosnia in the first place, I think that we shall stay there for my lifetime. The same may be true of Kosovo—those are continuing commitments.

Mr. Tom King: indicated assent.

Mr. Dalyell: Those areas have become de facto United Nations protectorates, so we need long-term arrangements. Can the MOD institute a scheme whereby the payments made to those personnel whose families are with the Rhine Army can at least be equal to those they receive when they are in a difficult and challenging theatre of operations?
I must apologise to the House because I shall not be able to remain in the Chamber. As I am chairman of the all-party Latin America group, I want to attend a meeting at Lancaster house at which the President of Colombia will make an important statement.
I have one further reflection. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) mentioned a monument to the nurses. The Ministry of Defence has been most helpful in relation to the Scottish nurses who served during the first world war. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has great medical knowledge, so he will be aware that they performed heroics at Royaumont in 1917–18 and had previously done so in Serbia. Their work was brilliantly written up by Dr. Eileen Crofton. I hope that the MOD will consider what can be done to commemorate them.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is always a privilege to speak in debates on our armed forces, especially after hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). The right hon. Gentleman has a wealth of experience—in uniform and as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence. He speaks wise words, and has a breadth and depth of understanding that we should acknowledge.
During 17 years as a Member of Parliament, I have frequently paid tribute to the courage and dedication of members of our armed forces—so much so that it almost becomes hackneyed. However, my tribute is not intended to be hackneyed. For almost 12 years, I had the privilege of serving alongside regular troops from Great Britain and full and part-time soldiers from Northern Ireland. I am aware of the tremendous sacrifice that has been made over 30 years.
Yesterday, the Royal Ulster Constabulary was presented with the George Cross—and rightly so. However, it is also appropriate to acknowledge the support given by our armed forces during the 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland. As a member of a small

minority party, I regret that I do not have the same opportunity as members of larger parties to go abroad and visit places where our forces are serving, such as Kosovo, Bosnia or the Falklands. However, perhaps I make up for that through living cheek by jowl with our serving soldiers for the past 30 years.
I do not want to dwell exclusively on Northern Ireland issues, but want to suggest that the House has three responsibilities to our armed forces: on resources, on conditions and on equipment. Whatever the party of government, resources are always a huge problem. It is therefore incumbent on the Government and the House to ensure that the best possible use is made of resources. One can never dictate conditions, but by giving consideration to equipment we can serve our soldiers well.
In Kosovo, the Serbian troops were dug in. Precision bombing was therefore a key element of our campaign, to the extent that some of us became concerned that it was counterproductive. None the less, the supply and reinforcement routes to the Serbian army had to be cut, and initially we relied almost exclusively on our Air Force. One can imagine how concerned we were to hear that, whereas the GR1 had always been successful in its laser designations bombing system, the GR4 had run into such difficulties that it was unable to operate. That problem had been known about since 1998, and it has taken at least two and a half years to put it right.
There are always difficulties with new technology, and especially with high technology. Over the years, whatever party has been in government, there have been times when overspend has been necessary. On occasion, vast resources have been expended and nothing has been produced. I remember the debacle of the airborne warning and control system—AWACS—several years ago. We must ensure that we take every opportunity to use resources wisely by buying proven equipment.
A huge tribute must be paid to our pilots in that the vast majority of errors made during the Kosovo campaign were not made by United Kingdom pilots, but errors are not always made by pilots; there can be errors in information and intelligence. We must congratulate our forces on their success in Kosovo and consider the problems that they had to face. Those problems were not always connected with aircraft, and we are told that aircraft problems did not impact greatly on that campaign, although they could have done.
The campaign was certainly affected by the problem that our Army probably has the worst rifle of any modern army in western Europe. I know why the SA80 was chosen and how important it was to Royal Ordnance, but it has not been a success, and neither has the SA80 light machine gun. It is an accurate weapon, and it is probably more accurate than the SLR, which preceded it, but it is not as reliable. I am old enough to remember the mark 4 Lee Enfield.

Mr. Tom King: indicated assent.

Mr. Maginnis: The right hon. Gentleman also remembers it. That was a wonderfully accurate and reliable weapon. Times move on and technology improves, but I was astonished to read that the SA80 is dangerous to a left-handed soldier because of how it discharges its rounds. Our soldiers, whether left or right-handed, have had to learn to fire off the right shoulder.
I know of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in cricket. Can he imagine what success the English cricket team would have if we made our right-handed batsmen play left-handed, or vice versa? On second thoughts, that might be a good idea. As a village schoolmaster, I would never have forced a left-handed child to use his or her right hand. Psychological damage may result from facing the challenge of working unnaturally along with the challenge of learning or, in the case of our soldiers, of trying to survive in a fire fight. That should have been thought about before the SA80 was issued.

Mr. Brazier: I support every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. The SA80 also presents the problem that, whether one is right or left-handed, effectively one cannot fire around the left-hand corner of a building without exposing one's entire body, which is ridiculous. It is manifestly an unsoldierly weapon.

Mr. Maginnis: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman reinforces my point. I do not want to go on ad infinitum about our soldiers' faulty equipment, but it is important that someone points out the problems. Our radios have been a problem since I first put on a uniform, 30 years ago. It seems that our radios have never worked, and I believe that the problem is getting worse. What are we going to do to provide our soldiers with equipment that works and gives them confidence?
I referred to bomb-aiming equipment, and I turn now to another weapon that will be essential during the next decade. I refer to the need to bring into operation the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile—BVRAAM—programme for the Eurofighter. Shorts Thompson, in my part of the world, has proposed to provide an extended-range air-to-air missile that has been tested, whereas no other weapon being tendered at this stage has been proven. Shorts Thompson is offering a proven weapon at half the price. It will represent value for money because it is faster, better and cheaper.
I shall say more about the needs of our soldiers in a moment. If the MOD is concerned about stretching resources, it should consider tested and proven equipment that builds on the advanced medium-range air-to-air missile that has been in service for some time, and offers the opportunity to extend the technology at comparatively—everything is costly in absolute terms—little cost. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) expressed his frustration that the debate is not specifically about procurement. However, we cannot consider the interests of our personnel without touching on that issue. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take best advantage of the resources available to them.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned the consequences of underestablishment in our security forces, including overstretch and pressure on families, and he quoted figures that I have with me. I shall not reiterate his remarks, but should like to present the figures in a slightly different fashion. We currently expect our soldiers to undertake operational tours at an unsustainable rate. Over the past four years, the Royal Armoured Corps has suffered a 60 per cent. reduction in the intervals between operational tours; the Royal Artillery a 50 per cent.

reduction; the Royal Engineers and Royal Signals a 70 per cent. reduction; and the infantry a reduction of almost 50 per cent. That cannot be sustained. I can offer the Government no solution, but it is a problem that they must address as a matter of urgency. At a time when there is adequate employment in the civilian world for our young men and women, what will be the attraction of Army life if such demands continue to be made? I should say that I recognise that the Government are aware of the problem and I welcome the increase in separation allowances.
Let me return to events in Northern Ireland. There is now huge pressure—political pressure, although that is not always admitted—on our Army and police, such that its being carried through to its logical conclusion will not only endanger society in Northern Ireland, but place our operational troops in danger. There has been a reduction—I hope that it is justified—in the number of soldiers posted to duty in Northern Ireland: the number of roulement battalions has been reduced to only two. If those troops are not required on the ground, the reduction in their number is welcome, as none of us wants to see our soldiers while away idle hours behind barracks walls. However, I hope that the reduction is not making it necessary for members of the Royal Irish Regiment, who live in Northern Ireland and serve, not in six-month tours, but continuously, to work the long hours—80 or 90 hours a week—that they have had to work on previous occasions.

Mr. Key: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Royal Navy bears its share of that pressure? Was he as disturbed as I was to hear talk of the withdrawal, in response to budgetary pressures, of the three guardships from Northern Ireland? My understanding is that those vessels are crucial to the security of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maginnis: There is no doubt that the Royal Navy presence is absolutely crucial. That detachment currently works under extreme pressure in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of huge regret to us that two soldiers on attachment to the Royal Navy were killed in a recent accident. The leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), has previously paid tribute to members of the armed forces in Northern Ireland who have made such sacrifices.
I listened with interest to the remarks about people with criminal records being recruited into the armed services. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be careful about that. It has ever been so—there is nothing particularly new in the proposal—but that does not mean that the Army, the Navy or the Air Force provide accommodation for criminals. Service in the armed forces provides opportunities to those who are prepared to turn over a new leaf and submit themselves to the authority and discipline of the armed services. It is probably too long since I first put on a uniform for me to avoid wondering about the issue of discipline within our armed services. I hope that the Government will do nothing to undermine the authority of our experienced and extremely good senior officers in disciplinary matters. If we are to provide people who have criminal records with new opportunities in the armed services, they must fully understand their commitment to their regiment. The last thing we want is to find that the Army is considered to be some sort of sin bin—that must not happen.
Discipline in the Army will come under increasing pressure from external sources. We have seen that happen to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The RUC is under pressure from those who claim to represent human rights interests, despite the fact that, in the face of the most serious provocation, the RUC has maintained discipline for more than 30 years, during which time tens of thousands of people have served in it. Despite that, in a few days' time, the Government are to introduce a 50-page Bill that, as I read it, deals exclusively with how we can put constraints on our police. Will the same thing happen to our Army as it fulfils a policing role throughout the world?
The Saville commission has been meeting in Northern Ireland, 28 years after what all of us agree was an unfortunate and tragic Sunday in 1972. Nobody doubts that mistakes were made. Equally, nobody doubts that in 1972 our troops were not trained to the level to which they are now trained to deal with civil disturbance. I cannot remember clearly what happened 28 years ago. Sometimes I cannot remember what happened yesterday, and I certainly have some difficulty with 1972.
The Army is being examined in a way that will be unfair to it. It was interesting to learn that Martin McGuinness, who is qualified to be a Member of this place, was possibly the person who fired the first shot in 1972. Those of us who have known his activities in the intervening years will not be surprised by that. The sad thing is that the Army will not have dedicated propagandists to deal with Mr. McGuinness's misdemeanours at that time, whereas there are those who have a vested interest in denigrating our Army, and not just in Northern Ireland. It will happen wherever our Army serves for an extended period.
It is important that morale, resources and equipment are sustained at a level that gives the Army the confidence to operate in the most difficult and dreadful circumstances, as we have seen it operate over the years.
I close as I began, by paying tribute to the men and women who, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater properly pointed out, no matter what we throw at them from this place, maintain their discipline and are unquestioning in the service that they give. Hence, it is up to us to reciprocate.

Sir Archie Hamilton: I follow the Minister for the Armed Forces in the tributes that he paid to our armed forces and the enthusiasm, pride and professionalism that they demonstrate.
We are fortunate in our armed forces, who have a unique capability. As one of the great institutions of this country, they seem to hold their place in the esteem of the people of Britain, at a time when, regrettably, our judiciary has declined in public esteem and, even more regrettably, our police are not viewed with the same respect as they used to be, but that certainly does not apply to the armed forces.
Of course, Parliament and Members of Parliament have probably sunk in public esteem more rapidly than any other part of our national institutions. One wonders about the esteem in which the Labour party holds our armed forces, when there is not a single Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber to take part in the debate. That indicates the attitude of the Labour party towards the armed forces.
It will be recognised by members of the armed forces that Labour Members, other than the Minister and the Whip sitting on the Front Bench, cannot be bothered to be present.
The Minister referred to the long periods of separation that our armed forces have to undergo. He recognised that that was extremely bad for family life in the forces, and consequently for retention. The divorce rates, which have become worse since 1990, are a signal that something is badly wrong and must be addressed.
It is not good enough for the Government to say that because the people involved are, on the whole, young married couples, it is unfair to compare the divorce rates in the armed forces with those for the nation as a whole. The fact that the divorce rate has been increasing over recent years is a matter of enormous concern and must be tackled.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie: The rate did get worse in one year, but it has been fluctuating for many years.

Sir Archie Hamilton: That is reflected in retention. I am sure the Minister recognises that the retention problems are great. Often, the cause of service men leaving is the fact that their wives complain bitterly. Young couples do not expect to get married and not to see each other for a prolonged period because the husband is away on service. They complain bitterly about that, and it is one of the reasons why retention is running as badly as it is at present.
The Minister said that the commitments to operations, running at 27 per cent., were the same as they were in 1997. I do not find that a source of great reassurance. We know that the situation in Northern Ireland is extremely difficult. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) mentioned, things could well get even more difficult there over the next few months, and we would then have to increase force levels in Northern Ireland.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, other commitments might arise. It is extremely difficult to drop existing commitments, but very easy to take up new ones, as the history of our commitments around the world shows. It is difficult to see any major difference between Bosnia and Kosovo, and Cyprus, where we have been for 30 years. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) observed, we will no doubt have United Nations commitments in Bosnia and Kosovo for the rest of our lives, and probably for the lifetime of any other hon. Member as well, because such situations seem to go on for ever.
The Minister correctly identified successful training as essential to our forces. The fact that they are, on the whole, better trained than any other army makes them so exceptional. I am sure that the Government therefore recognise the considerable concern that is caused when exercises are cancelled, as has been happening; when flying hours are reduced from 203,000 hours in 1996 to 184,000 in 1999; when we have to economise on ships on patrol; and when cuts are made constantly, reducing the training opportunities for our armed forces. That is a matter of great concern.
When we consider training, we have to ask what our armed forces are for. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, that great and brilliant general,


Mike Jackson, tried to complete the circle, saying that they had to be prepared to do almost anything. There has always been the serious question whether our armed forces exist to defend these shores and to be prepared to be involved in high-intensity warfare, or whether they are to be peacekeepers, deployed all round the world, doing an entirely different job.
General Mike Rose always took the view that soldiers could not be asked to do both. Either they were in the business of helping old ladies across the road, escorting food convoys, and generally being rather gentle policemen to people whom they were trying to keep apart, or they were in the business of killing people. Both roles cannot be combined, and it is unfair to ask the armed forces to do that.
We must always bear in mind the bottom line: the job of our armed forces is high intensity warfare and to defend our shores and our interests in wars. We must be careful that we do not degrade their capacity to do that when we send them on peacekeeping missions.

Mr. Key: Was my hon. Friend as surprised as me that the strategic defence review almost ignored home defence? My hon. Friend referred twice to defending these shores, but the strategic defence review assumed that there was no longer any need to do that or for the military to have such a role.

Sir Archie Hamilton: Indeed. We were told that the strategic defence review was foreign policy led. I am still waiting to hear the Foreign Office advice. The Government claim to be committed to openness and making advice available to everybody, yet we are not allowed to know the contents of an essential document, which was the basis of the strategic defence review. What does that mean in the context of freedom of information? The document is not especially sensitive, and it is extraordinary that we cannot be given the Foreign Office advice on which the review was based.
I presume that the Foreign Office was not especially interested in home defence and that it suggested that defence policy could be skewed in favour of overseas commitments. It overlooked the fact that the purpose of our armed forces is to ensure that this country is properly defended.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) was a bit cheeky when he suggested that the strategic defence review was good for morale. I do not know to whom he spoke, but clearly he and I talked to different people. The review was supposed to take place over six months. It took much longer because the usual turf war broke out. Morale did not go up; it went down as a consequence of the strategic defence review. Its findings, especially the 3 per cent. in so-called savings, did even more to break morale.

Mr. Brazier: My right hon. Friend mentioned home defence. Asymmetric warfare and the threat it poses to this country received one short mention in the strategic defence review. In contrast, of the 23 conclusions reached in the recent American review, which was published last September, the first was that asymmetric warfare posed a serious threat to mainland America in the next few years.

Sir Archie Hamilton: I referred to that in an earlier debate on the Defence White Paper. Serious worries

derive from my hon. Friend's point. If a massive superpower—arguably the only remaining superpower—takes on some small country, which is rendered incapable of reacting militarily, there are serious questions about that small country's future reaction. It is enormously worrying for the security of the world, especially in the light of the development of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise.

Mr. Spellar: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Ministry of Defence website, where he can read the speech that I made to the Atlantic Council towards the end of last year. I dealt with that matter at some length.

Sir Archie Hamilton: I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of that. I shall get back to my personal computer as soon as possible and read his speech on the website. I am sure it is interesting, and I am sorry that it did not receive more publicity, which, I am sure, it deserved.
The only good news for the Ministry of Defence is that we are in a new financial year. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made the point that we already seem to be moving towards a financial crisis. I hoped that there would be few months in which the Ministry of Defence could work on the assumption that it had enough money to cover its problems; I believed that only at the end of the financial year would it begin to experience the problems about which we have heard recently. However, the pressure of commitments and the need to find further so-called savings means that the Ministry of Defence continues to experience difficulties despite the new tranche of money that it should receive.
It is important to remind everyone in this country that the budget will be cut by between 3.8 per cent. between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. That is a substantial cut that follows savings by Conservative Governments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater explained the necessity for those savings. However, we have reached the point where we cannot afford to cut the defence budget further.
I am not responsible for our policies in the next manifesto, but I should like us to guarantee that we will maintain the defence budget in real terms in the next Parliament at least. It is important to give that reassurance to our armed forces, which have been salami sliced for so long that they are finding life difficult. The savings are not helping.
The Government have trouble explaining the difference between a 3 per cent. efficiency saving and a cut. There is no satisfactory answer. The Select Committee report made it clear that the Committee was not satisfied.
The services are under strength by 8,700 trained personnel. I presume that the Government budgeted for the strength that the forces were supposed to be at, and that they are saving money by having fewer trained personnel. Is that an efficiency saving? If so, it is rather strange. I suspect that it is lumped in with efficiency savings, which are really cuts.
Like many other Conservative Members, I believe that the cuts in the Territorial Army have been extraordinary. Someone must deal with that problem. The Territorial Army's budget is included in that of the Army. Membership of the Army Board is exclusively taken up


by professional soldiers whose view of the Territorial Army is that if it is not a cheap worthwhile reserve force, it is expensive considering its capabilities. If they are given any choice between retaining a front-line, regular regiment or emasculating the Territorial Army, the latter will always suffer when the heat is on.
The only way to tackle the problem is to shift the budget for the Territorial Army, possibly to the Home Office under home defence, with a contract from the Ministry of Defence to organise and train its members. Unless we do that and if it remains a Ministry of Defence responsibility, I can tell the House that it will continue to be cut every time there are pressures on and in the MOD.
I have yet to meet a serving general who has any serious interest in the TA, although that does not prevent them from making massive use of it whenever they are in serious trouble or find themselves going to war without doctors or anyone of that sort. Then it becomes a valuable resource. If given the choice, they will always cut it and maintain regular forces in preference. We shall get away from that only if we separate the funding completely.
When we are so under strength, so grotesquely over-committed and leaning on the TA to such a degree to fill regular posts—many of which are in the infantry and out in the Balkans—it strikes me as extraordinary to cut it back, particularly the infantry, as they are the resource that we are using most. The Government have been extremely ill-advised to allow that to happen and I should have thought that we could take such a stringent view only when regular forces were fully manned and we felt that we did not need such reserves. However, we have needed them badly when we have been cutting them and that is not very clever, in anyone's language.
I am also distressed that the Government still seem to be committed to some form of European defence identity and we always seem to go through the triumph of hope over reality in terms of our European negotiations. There is no doubt that, on the whole, the record of European procurement has been pretty dismal and vast sums have been wasted because there is not the agreement and cohesion of outlook that makes such initiatives possible.
We cannot remind the House too often of our bruising experiences during the Gulf war—the support that we received from our European allies was dismal. Under the presidential constitution, the French at least had a system whereby they could decide to go to war, but, other than the Mirages and the French air force, their contribution was limited. Their light tanks could only be put against an Iraqi infantry division and the aircraft carrier that they sent out did not have the power to enable fixed-wing aircraft to take off from it. Eventually, it broke down and had to go home. The Germans had tremendous problems supporting us at all and the Luftwaffe wing that was sent out to Turkey virtually mutinied so its contribution was minimal. The Italians flew a Tornado sortie, but had one shot down. They did not bother to fly again. We all know about the Belgians, who had extreme difficulty with their coalition Government and would not even sell my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater the 155 mm ammunition he needed.
Now that a certain time has passed and as we all believe in openness, we can reveal a wonderful case. The Belgian Defence Minister sent my right hon. Friend a telegram saying, "I am under a bit of pressure from all these British newspapers, which are slagging the Belgians off for not

being very helpful about the war. Will you send me a telegram saying, 'Thank you very much for all the ammunition.'? If you thank me in advance I shall be extremely grateful. I'll send the ammunition later." My right hon. Friend was not born yesterday, he did not send the telegram and the ammunition never arrived. We must be very careful.
I was interested in the views of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on European defence. Usually, I find Liberals to be frightfully keen on anything to do with Europe, even if it does not add up to much, but he was so right when he said that European defence needs to be capability led. We cannot do anything to bring European countries together until they increase their defence budgets. As we know, the Europeans cut their defence budgets between 1990 and 1999—France by 23 per cent., Germany by 39 per cent., Italy by 21 per cent. and the United Kingdom by 29 per cent. Declining defence budgets are not the right backdrop for bringing people together to spend additional money to create European structures. We shall face nothing but absolute disaster if we go down that road.

Mr. Maginnis: On liaison between various countries, has the right hon. Gentleman taken on board my point about the Raytheon contribution to the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile tender? If we went for that option, we would get technology that we do not have for free.

Sir Archie Hamilton: Yes, indeed. There is a great debate—we have had many before—about whether we should go for European technology, which has an awful long way to go in development terms, or well-tried United States technology. I have no interest either way, but the people with whom I discuss these matters say that the difference in price is some £400 million, which is a large gap on a £750 million contract. Enormous pressure to buy European will be applied on the basis that we are keeping a technological base here. For that reason, it may be difficult for Shorts to win this one.

Mr. Maginnis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I merely want to remind him that Shorts is now fully owned by Thomson-CSF, so there is also a European dimension.

Sir Archie Hamilton: I accept that there is a European dimension, but a much more interesting aspect of procurement is the current discussion between BAE Systems and Boeing. In the past there has been the same split—the same argument about whether we go American or European—but if a monopoly defence contractor in this country is now going to establish major links with an American contractor, it is an entirely different ballgame. Much will depend on how strong those links become. If the two companies merge, the debate about whether to buy American or to buy European will change. If we wanted to look after our major defence contractor here, it would inevitably involve American technology. No doubt we can have an interesting discussion about that in the future.
As many speakers have observed, we must abandon the idea of 3 per cent. savings. I think that those savings are doing enormous damage in the MOD, that we must stabilise expenditure and stop cutting it further, and that we must do all that we can to achieve proper spending


levels. We must also be extremely wary about the commitments that we take on in the future, because I do not think that our forces are up to meeting them all at current levels.

Mr. Harry Cohen: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton). He was a very competent Defence Minister, and was always courteous to me when I intervened and asked questions. I agree with him and others that it is easy to enter into commitments, but they often turn out to be long-haul commitments, and it is not so easy to get out.
Yesterday we debated the Post Office. About three years ago, I went on holiday to a lovely little village. The village magazine contained the obituary of a woman who had clearly been the life and soul of the village. It gave her life history, and mentioned that she had married the local postman, but the second world war had then arrived and he had been posted abroad. [Laughter.] A person may have been a postman or had some other job, but anyone in the armed forces is likely to be posted abroad. I apologise for that rather weak story, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Never mind; I shall continue with my speech.
I pay tribute to the Government for making important improvements in armed forces personnel policy in just three years. They have made the personnel far more professional. The document "Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy", which is available for Members to see, sets out a good framework.
Racism has been mentioned, and no doubt it still exists in the armed forces. The Conservatives have a poor record in that regard: only a report produced by the Commission for Racial Equality threatening to take them to court forced them to change their policy. There is a fantastic difference between their approach and that of the present Government, who are determined to root out racism in the forces and to establish equal opportunities. Tackling racist bullying is very important.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I know the hon. Gentleman to be fair, but I must say this to him: first, there was no policy against other races coming into the armed forces; and secondly, he should pay tribute to members of the armed forces who, mostly on their own initiative, have set about sorting out the perceived problems, particularly in the Household Division, which has been lauded by the CRE for having changed all that. It was in the hands more of the soldiers, sailors and airmen than of politicians of either side.

Mr. Cohen: I pay tribute to the new personnel and managers in the armed forces. They have fallen into line with the Government's policy to tackle racism, but that was the problem: the previous Government did not have a policy on it. The result was that the number of people from ethnic minority communities coming into the armed forces was very low. The number being retained was very low, too, because of the racism that they encountered there. I am delighted that that and, indeed, institutional racism in recruitment, retention and promotion policies, are being tackled.
The Government set a goal to recruit 3 per cent. from ethnic minority communities in 1999–2000, rising annually by 1 per cent. to 5 per cent. by the end of 2001–02. I was disappointed that, in answer to my intervention, the Minister had to admit that that target had not been met, although there has been a significant increase, to which he alluded.
I want to give an overview of the figures. In 1997–98, 0.9 per cent of the Royal Navy's recruits were from ethnic minority communities; in the Army, the figure was 1.4 per cent; and in the RAF it was 1 per cent. In 1998–99, the Government's first full year in office, recruitment from those communities was 1.6 per cent. in the Royal Navy, 2 per cent. in the Army and 1.4 per cent. in the RAF.
There is sure to have been an improvement this year, which will at least get us close to the 3 per cent. target, but I am disappointed that it has not been met. I ask the Minister to look at the matter because there are higher targets next year and action needs to be taken to ensure that they are met.
There are good pilot projects, but they are moving too slowly. They need to be extended to other areas with large ethnic minority communities, including my area. There are potential recruits in the borough of Waltham Forest. More recruits from the Asian community could easily be picked up for the armed forces—for the armed forces' benefit, I might add.
Role models remain important. There are just not enough of them high enough up in the armed forces, acting as a beacon and an attraction for others to come in, and perhaps try to emulate people such as General Colin Powell in the United States. I hope that we can get some role models as part of that process.
Recruitment of women is a success story. The percentage of women in the armed forces has risen. In 1999, it was about 7.6 per cent., but I note that there is no target on the proportion of women in the armed forces. I urge the Government to set such a target. It should go to 10 per cent. at an early time and move up to double the present level—perhaps to 15 per cent—within a relatively short time.
Some of the increasing commitments that we are talking about are peacekeeping commitments. Women are ideally placed in the armed forces to play an important part in that peacekeeping role. I am concerned that women are being kept out of some parts of the service. The present Government have increased the number of roles in which women can serve. Before they came to office, only 45 per cent. of roles could be filled by women; now, they can serve in 70 per cent of roles. That means that women still cannot serve in 30 per cent. of service roles. I believe that most, but not all, of the roles in that 30 per cent. involve what might be called direct killing—which the Minister, in his speech, using a more polite term, called high-intensity war-fighting operations. Although I appreciate the sensitivity of the issue, I suspect that some of the attitudes of those who want to keep women out of those parts of the armed forces may be outdated. I am also worried that denying women the training necessary to fill those roles could hamper their long-term career prospects.
Both men and women should have a choice in whether they fill direct-killing roles. Men and women who wish to fill such a role should also undergo screening to ensure


that they are suitable. The issue should be kept under constant review, especially as all personnel—even those filling "basic" roles—need to have self-defence skills, such as tackling snipers and armed thugs. Any service man or woman could, unfortunately, be placed in a situation in which he or she has to kill someone. All service people have to have that training.
I do not think that women should be excluded from the elite units. One old-fashioned argument—I think that it is old-fashioned—is that men in those units might hesitate to act if women were present, with perhaps fatal consequences. I do not accept that argument. Such a consequence could be avoided by a suitable training regime. The Israeli army, for example, has had women in combat roles for very many years. I do not accept that women should be automatically excluded from any service role.
Peacekeeping has been mentioned in the debate. Perhaps we should establish in our armed forces a gendarmerie or carabinieri-type force, which is half military and half police. Such a body could play an important part in the type of roles that we are now playing. It is not appropriate to expect simply to leave it to the French or Italians to play that role. The Government should conduct a proper review of that possibility and provide a report on it to the House.
I certainly welcome the Government's "Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy" document, which states:
An organisation the size of the Armed Forces (which employs over 200,000 people and which spends over £6 billion per annum on serving military personnel) should have a visionary statement setting out its approach to its people.
I am not sure that the strategy is that visionary in setting out the forces' approach to personnel, but it is a significant step forward. It provides the basis for professionalism in personnel management in the armed forces and for improvement in other spheres, with which I shall deal later.
The document is a bit technical in parts, but, crucially, it deals with what it calls "tolerable variation", which it defines as
Centre-led personnel policies which apply to two or more single Services, although elements of the application of the policies might vary in one or more Service.
It also states that directions from the centre should not be "overly prescriptive". I agree with that. They should not be excessive, and there should be flexibility between the centre and the individual.
Gaps must not appear as between the service and central personnel units, where each says that the other has responsibility. We need transparency, and the reasons for variations must be given in the public domain. I am in a small minority in this House, but I favour trade union representation for armed forces personnel, although without the strike option. That would be the best way forward.
We must continue to improve the complaints procedure, because the armed forces can get into trouble if complaints are not dealt with properly. The document deals with education policies, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) paid tribute to the Government's improvements, with national vocational qualifications and skills training. However, there is a need for substantial improvements in education policy. The armed forces may not think that this relates to their job,

but many people who come into the armed forces are unable to read and write. When they leave, they should be able to read and write, which is also important when orders are given. Overall, improvements are being made in education.
The report signals individual areas, four of which in particular need detailed review: welfare; families; personal health; and health and safety policies. I hope that there will be a full-scale review of each of these matters, to follow up the "Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy" policy document.
The veterans advice unit is to be welcomed, and I pay tribute to the Government for setting that up. I welcome also the bereaved families policy, which will be led from the centre. I hope that that will lead to a more sensitive and generous approach when there has been loss of life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said that those in the Falklands had to pay £1 a minute for telephone conversations with their loved ones. That is unacceptable, and although it has changed, it is still too high. The Government have increased the telephone allowance, which is now up to 20 free minutes a week for those serving in Bosnia and the Gulf. The figure was only three minutes when the Government came into office. The amount of time has been extended in Kosovo as well. I believe that it could be increased again—to 30 minutes, for example. The Select Committee has pointed out that the change in policy in Kosovo made
a significant contribution to improved morale,
so there is a case for that extension.
We need to develop the use of e-mail links. The Minister said that significant progress has been made, but I would like more. Other armed forces are doing more than we are, although we now have the electronic bluey so that messages can get directly to soldiers in theatre. There should be more. Wherever the armed forces deploy, there should be a well-stocked computer centre.
The Ministry of Defence should develop its own internet service provider—armedforces.co.uk—to give service personnel easy access to communication with their loved ones, in addition to telephone access. That would be a cheaper way of communicating, certainly in the long term.
The Government should consider issuing e-mail mobile phones to armed forces personnel. I understand that there is also a need for secure communication in certain circumstances. There is room for improvement. The previous Government had an even worse record on communications for basic operations. They made a mess of the Bowman contract. Technology moves on and the MOD must do better in keeping up with it without spending the earth.
The Government have a good story to tell overall on personnel policies for the armed forces. They have improved on the situation under the Conservative Government. They could do better still. With the overarching personnel strategy, they have a mechanism by which to do so.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not propose to dwell on the problems that have afflicted the armed services over the past few years. All of us who have read the Select Committee's report know that it


makes pretty grim reading, and since its publication we have heard further examples of overstretch: the cancellation of exercises, with its impact on training; shortage of pilots; the poor quality of some of the equipment; and, last but by no means least, the cuts in the Territorial Army.
The presence of the armed forces is not as visible as it used to be. If we want to encourage the voluntary spirit—which we do, because we do not choose to have conscription—the worst thing that we can do is to attack the TA. Those part-time voluntary soldiers can be committed to service abroad. We know examples of that. The current policy is very short-sighted. We know where some of the problem lies. I did service in the Ministry of Defence, as a junior Minister under Lord Carrington, and in the Army, and I have seen how the TA can be kicked around or shunted aside for a time until something serious happens, while the Regular Army gets on with the job. Still, that is old politics and we cannot help it.
Morale is affected not only by overstretch, equipment and training, but by the perception that we have of the role of the armed services and the unity of purpose that they share with our allies. It is very important to have the right framework in which to operate with a will. That applies equally to the civilian population, who after all need to be convinced that the money spent on the armed forces is spent in the right context. That depends, even more than before the second world war, on an alliance between countries that share similar objectives.
I want to say a few words about the defence structure that has been formulated by NATO and its impact on the armed forces as we adjust to the post-cold war world. I remain very much involved with NATO, as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and I have had various appointments there, so I am an Atlanticist, but that does not make me anti-European. I want both Government and Opposition Members to understand that.
The European contribution is in need of repair. We know that. The European members of NATO, as we were reminded some months ago, spend 60 per cent. of what the United States of America spends, but—and this is a shocking fact—their capacity to project military force is about 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of Washington's. It is obvious we are not getting value for money, and I wonder what impact those facts will have on personnel and on the NATO structure, which so far has proved itself to be the most successful military alliance in modern history.
For some years, American politicians have asked me when we have met, "What are you guys doing to help the alliance?" They have rightly urged European members of the alliance to do more. I shall not go through the statistics of various countries, but like us they have cut back on defence. They have cut even more savagely and I do not believe that they get good value for money as a result. Their forces have become less and less effective in meeting modern conditions.
The Balkan crisis obliged us to direct more of our attention to conflict prevention and crisis management. The British are especially good at that. I remember being involved in peacekeeping and peacemaking, and it was amazing how well disciplined and trained the blokes I worked with were. Our ability in those areas attracts the

admiration and respect of those who have worked with the British troops in such places as Bosnia, Herzegovina and elsewhere.
The limited effect that Europe has had on the world scene has been mainly confined to creating peacekeeping and peacemaking initiatives on the continent of Europe. Out of that comes the view that we should be able to be more creative in the work we do and to play a greater part should some more serious problem arise, inside or outside Europe. We should also work more harmoniously and creatively with our American allies.
The Cologne summit that took place recently has generated the concern that the EU is embarking on a path that could lead to the violation of the three Ds for the European security and defence initiative adumbrated by Secretary of State Allbright—no duplication, no discrimination and no decoupling. We can take some comfort that a breach in the cohesiveness of the alliance is not contemplated by the Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson, who is a former Secretary of State for Defence. He has frequently cited the three Is in contrast to some of the pessimistic views that have been expressed about the future of the ESDI. The three Is are the indivisibility of transatlantic security, the improvement of European capabilities and the inclusiveness of all European allies in the process. I have no doubt that that is his intention and I know many people in Europe, such as Members of the European Parliament and others involved in defence, who believe that that is the intention. However, if we are to achieve the respect of the public and, above all, the armed services, we must ask how the cohesiveness that has stood us in such stead since NATO was formed will be maintained.
The EU consists only of European countries and has a common foreign and security policy. That is all laid down in the various agreements since its formation and is bound to reflect the different perspectives on regional, transatlantic and global matters that are central to solidarity. Within Europe are countries which are members of NATO but not of the EU, and members of the EU which are not members of NATO. That is one of the weakness of the ESDI and it could founder on that rock. The EU should not forget that there is more to a European security and defence initiative than just including its own member states.
General Klaus Naumann, the former chairman of NATO's permanent military committee, whom I met on a number of occasions, has frequently asserted that efforts to create a European security defence identify have been troubled by too many institutions and too little substance, too many meetings and study papers and too few concrete steps forward in terms of capabilities. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and others have also pointed that out in this debate. As members of the European Union we must ask ourselves whether we are going to concentrate our efforts only on dealing with the structures, or whether we will grasp the nettle and improve our capability.
Using the well-proven structures of NATO seems to be the best path to follow, rather than trying to create any rival institution. Members of the European Parliament whom I have met, and representatives who serve at an administrative level, have told me that that is not their intention. Our Government says so too. However, the temptation to divert our interests away from the Atlantic community and to concentrate as European nations on


what we think are the problems at our back door may look to a continental European like the best way to preserve stability and defend the rights of Europeans. However, that does not seem to be so to those across the Atlantic.
Above all, we need to be assured that that alliance, which has been so successful, will continue to attract the support and loyalty of our armed forces. When we praise them, we must not neglect the fact that one reason why they have given their service so unstintingly and with courage and initiative, from the generals to the lowest private, is because they not only know that their cause is a good one—both in the cold war and afterwards—but they have had the right structure, which has enabled them to fulfil their capabilities. That is the message that we have to learn.

Mr. Julian Brazier: It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), with his years of experience, which extend back to the end of the second world war and his time as a Minister. I will not repeat his arguments, but hon. Members on both sides of the House should listen with respect to his lessons about the substance and structure of the European defence initiative and the extent to which the emphasis is on the wrong one of the two. I firmly agree with him.
I welcome one part of the Minister's speech. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) I felt that the speech was good in parts and I congratulate the Government on the families taskforce. I called unsuccessfully for such an operation on many occasions when I was a Government Back Bencher. It is thoroughly worth while and costs extremely little. If other Departments think about armed forces families when they are deliberating on health, education or whatever, it will have a value to those families that will be much appreciated.
None the less, I am profoundly at odds with the Government over the direction of defence policy; my colleagues have alluded to some of the reasons. Whenever the Opposition—whoever happens to be in opposition—criticise the armed forces, the Government of the day promptly say, "You are knocking our armed forces." What I am about to say is not an exercise in knocking our armed forces; far from it. I was proud to be a territorial for 13 years, my father was a regular soldier, and my grandfather served as a regular in the first world war and a territorial in the second. I believe, however, that our armed forces are not in a position to defend this country from some of the threats that it may face. In rightly expressing pride in the qualities of our individual service men, we easily forget that in the lifetime of many people in this country, the British Army was convincingly defeated. Churchill was right in this Chamber in 1940. He was speaking for many people who, like himself, were first world war veterans, when he said that it was a pretty poor day when this country was cheering over a successful evacuation. That is what Dunkirk was, of course—an evacuation in which we had even abandoned most of our heavy weapons.
The challenges today are, in some respects, quite different from what faced us then. In other respects, there are parallels. In 1914, as little as six weeks before the war began, we did not expect to be fighting a war in Europe.

Most right hon. and hon. Members will know of the famous leader in The Times, which started with the words:
This empire faces the most severe threat for generations
and then went on to talk about the situation in Ireland. I do not mean to downplay the situation in Ireland, which was grave. Yet a few weeks later, we were bogged down in the first world war.
Some right hon. and hon. Members will have read the recently published book on Stalingrad. It reminds us that to the total amazement of the Russians, Axis forces numbering 4 million soldiers crossed their border with only a few weeks warning from their intelligence, which their politicians, including Stalin, continued to disbelieve even after the first deployments had taken place.
It may be said that this was all a long time ago. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) reminded us that just a few days before Saddam Hussein chose to invade the Gulf, there was no thought of a Gulf war in anyone's mind. Yet within months, armed forces numbering three quarters of a million had to be put together in a hurry. Fortunately, America produced two thirds of the manpower. Next time, America is much less likely to be willing to do that. However, it has retained a structure in which it can expand enormously.
There is an old adage that history never reveals the "what ifs"—what would have happened if things had turned out differently. None the less, it was interesting to ask, in the Select Committee on Defence, what we would have done if we had had to mount a land operation in Kosovo. There is a danger that history may just reveal that "what if' if the situation in Montenegro, south-west Serbia or even in Kosovo takes an unexpected and unpleasant direction. I opposed sending troops there, but with many thousands of British and allied troops tied up in Kosovo, we may still discover the "what if'.
We were told that we would need to put together 55,000 British soldiers in a hurry. We were told that within four weeks, if I remember rightly—other sources suggest that it was as little as two weeks—we would have to decide whether to deploy. A quarter of those troops would have been reservists, including large numbers of infantry and sappers—the two groups that took the largest cuts in the Territorial Army.
The "what if' question on Kosovo concerns me, but it is not what concerns me most. In an earlier intervention, I quoted the first of the 23 conclusions of the American report that was published in September, commissioned by the Pentagon, with the agreement of both Houses of Congress as well as the President. It was that Americans were likely to face severe threats on American soil within their planning horizon. That was alluding to the spreading of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical and biological—not only to rogue states but to terrorist organisations.
Let us suppose for a moment that we face a direct threat from a rogue state or terrorist organisation. On other occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has talked about ballistic missile defence, but I want to concentrate on the conventional aspects.
In this example, let us suppose that Iran happens to be the country mounting the threat. In the Iran-Iraq war, it showed that it could raise enormous armies—not terribly


well equipped or trained, but huge and willing to take extremely heavy casualties. Large areas of the country are covered in what might be called a reinforced concrete jungle. Whole cities are made of such structures.
Let us further suppose in this example that Britain faces a nuclear threat. It is known that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and that it is hand in glove with North Korea. Indeed, it is alleged that the Iranians paid for the North Korean missile development programme. Let us suppose finally that a weapon has been detonated from an Iranian source.
Would it be possible to break into such a country, given the sheer scale of the forces that the allies would have to put together? Do we really think that America would provide 90 per cent. of the air sorties, as happened in the Balkans? We must bear in mind that America's gross domestic product and population are smaller than Europe's. Most importantly, can we expect it to provide two thirds of the manpower required, as happened in the Gulf?
America would say that, proportionately, its professional force is broadly similar to Britain's—its population is four or five times the size of ours, and its regular armed forces are about five times the size of ours. However, America has an enormous reserve structure. Behind its 10 regular army divisions, it can call out 13 national guard divisions.
Britain had pitifully tiny manpower reserves at the last election, and infantry numbers have been more than halved since then. We cannot call out a single infantry battalion from the Territorial Army. The 15 so-called TA infantry battalions, which are all that remain of the 33 that existed before, are not really battalions at all, as everyone serving in the infantry knows. They are little groupings of companies that are not even real companies because they do not have sufficient manpower, and there is no proper headquarters structure at all. The result is that Britain can no longer put a large army together.
It has already been said that the Government appear to have lost sight of the fact that defence of the country and its vital interests is their prime role. Instead, the Government's strategic defence review in effect rules out that role. The Government are committed to a programme of overseas operations that range from peacekeeping to expeditionary forces in wars that, by implication, are wars of choice.
Britain might have to take part in an expeditionary force that must fight for the very life of the country. The task might be to stamp out a nuclear threat from a third-world country that had already started to deploy and use nuclear weapons. That is what the Americans think might be required. If such a country were to direct its attention solely to Europe, it is possible that a future American Government with an isolationist bent might not want to mount an invasion.
The solution does not lie in trying to develop structures in Europe that would be an alternative to NATO. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden argued so convincingly, the solution lies in increasing defence spending in western European countries so that we can have credible armed forces again.
It is true that a very good professional core remains, but years of cuts in the money made available to that core will progressively undermine it. If the cuts continue to be

targeted mainly on collective training—and the Minister was good enough to recognise that that was a problem—the professional standard will not remain very good for long but will drop quite fast. However, even that professional core is of little value in fighting a real war if there is no means to expand and sustain it.
There are implications for equipment as well as personnel. I recognise that this is a debate on personnel, but I cannot pass over making one quick point about equipment. In the Kosovo operation we were up against a small enemy. That was Serbia, with a population of a few million, against NATO as a whole. Yet unbelievably, we ran out of weapons of certain categories, such was the paucity of our ammunition stocks—and it is Government policy still further to reduce them in some areas.
Precisely the same points that can be made about manpower can be made about equipment. A war cannot be fought without an industrial ability to sustain an equipment effort. In the same way, a war cannot be fought without the ability to sustain the manpower side of the effort. The closure of the royal ordnance factory at Bishopton and the loss of the ability to produce propellants for ammunition was the tip of the iceberg. If we focus our procurement effort on a value-for-money programme that is based, for example, on the number of tanks, guns and aeroplanes that we have in the shop window, and we fail to spend money on keeping surge capability within our industries—unnecessary in peace time but critical in war—we will ultimately reduce our armed forces to a toy. If they do not have the ammunition to sustain their efforts, they will not be able to sustain a war.
I shall spend three or four minutes dealing with specific points of detail on reserve forces. I hesitate to talk about the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who knows so much more about it than I do and who will be speaking next. However, although I welcome the experiment that the Government are carrying out with fast-jet fighter pilots, I suggest that they are wasting their time unless they introduce formed units that are commanded by volunteer reserve commanders, otherwise the cultural struggle between those who are professionals and those whom the professionals perceive as having left to go to comfortable civilian jobs and return for sport flying at the weekend, will continue to create tensions.
The reason why the US air national guard is such a success and has a turnover so much smaller than that of the US reserve air force is that it has formed units. They are given tasks and are sent abroad as formed units—to play their role in the Balkans and the Gulf, for example.
I alluded earlier to the wrong shape of our infantry battalions. None of them is a real battalion and none could be used as one in the short term, because of their present structure. There is a different problem with the more specialist units. I referred to them when intervening on the Minister and he kindly said that he would come back to me. I shall stay with the Royal Corps of Signals as an example.
In the old days, signals units were in signals brigades. The commanding officer of a signals unit is all too often a regular officer. I do not mean that offensively, but volunteer reserve soldiers are usually best commanded by volunteer reserve commanders. In days past, the


commanding officer had his confidential report, on which his career depended, written by a Royal Signals brigade commander. The professionalism of a specialised signals unit in carrying out tasks of considerable complexity was being assessed by a signals brigadier.
No doubt I will receive a letter—carefully researched, as Ministers' letters always are—assuring me that such structures are still in place. However, there has been a critical change that is deeply resented by Territorial Army officers within the Royal Signals. It is that those units have been grouped into regional brigades commanded by generalist brigadiers—I do not mean that offensively—who have no specialist knowledge of what troops equipped with Ptarmigan, for example, are up to. These brigadiers write the first part of the confidential reports. There has also been a reduction in the number of permanent staff and in the number of man training days. The combined effect of all that must be that specialist standards in such units will fall.
My final point is to pick up briefly on an issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton). He argued that there should be a separate vote for reserve forces, and that it should come under another Department. I do not think that that is practical. However, we need to introduce the same type of senior officer structure in our reserve forces as they have in countries with reserve forces such as Australia, America, Canada and Switzerland. The absence of reserve generals to give direct advice on reserve matters to Ministers creates the problem in this country. It has led to the disproportionate cuts to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred.
I end my remarks where I began them. We lose sight of the purpose of our armed forces when we convert them into an organisation designed for peacekeeping and expeditionary wars of choice. The prime purpose of defence is to defend this country and its vital interests.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I shall be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made a vigorous and admirable speech, but I take issue with him on one point only. He said that the Minister for the Armed Forces made a very good contribution, but I thought it was too sanguine and I fear that it verged on the complacent. Although the quality of our armed forces is quite exceptional, their quantity is wholly inadequate—there are only 210,000 regular personnel. In the Kosovo war, Royal Air Force air crews won more Distinguished Service Orders and Distinguished Flying Crosses than in any conflict since world war two, and no one can doubt the commitment of our personnel. However, we must address the problem of retention to make sure that we have balanced and experienced armed forces that will achieve best performance on a continuing basis.
Members have spoken about shorter tour intervals in the Army and the long separations endured by sea-going personnel in the Navy, and pointed out that offensive support squadrons of, particularly, the Royal Air Force are abroad for long periods of time. The effect of that is exemplified by the fact that the fast-jet force of the Royal Air Force is 20 per cent. short and the Royal Navy Harrier force is 30 per cent. short. They are serious deficiencies.
We should consider the total force concept. That is why I was so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and my right hon. Friend the Member for

Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) spoke as they did. The concept of reserves is important, because we cannot consider personnel policy for the armed forces without considering the reserves. We should also consider European engagement through the European defence initiative, which will increasingly determine the nature of our defence policy.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) made an interesting and original speech and she recognised that the armed forces are a community apart. However, despite what she said, their distinct nature needs to be nurtured and encouraged and they need special treatment on pay and allowances. That is the bedrock of the problem. They do not receive sufficient financial and material compensation for the serious sacrifices that they make on our behalf.
That point was brought home to me by the phasing out of the London allowance, an issue that effects my constituency. I put down a parliamentary question on 20 March and received a long, courteous and detailed reply from the Minister for the Armed Forces. The London allowance, which compensated service men for the additional costs of living in London, has been withdrawn, with a transitional period, with effect from 1 April this year.
It is true that a recruitment and retention allowance was introduced on 1 April 1997, but that does not compensate those personnel who, since 1997, have resided continuously in London and whose service obligations require them to remain in London. That can mean that personnel in outer London—for example, at RAF Northolt in my constituency—who do not live in their own property might lose £45 a month. Personnel serving in outer London, but living in their own property, could lose £110 a month. All those figures were spelled out in the Minister's letter to me.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to a similar problem. He spoke about the vagaries of the overseas allowances system. Personnel normally stationed in Germany, who serve in the Balkans, suffer cuts in their overseas allowances, notwithstanding the difficult conditions in which they have to operate in that theatre.
It is imperative that the House does everything possible to emphasise that good conditions of service are vital. We do our best, but the armed forces personnel debate is not the right structure for that. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) pointed out, we still need our single service debates. May I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we hold such debates in Westminster Hall? That would be an ideal forum; we could sit in our hemicycle. We all care about our individual services and those of our constituents who are members of them. It would be an appropriate atmosphere in which to address the problems.
Of course, we need international forums, such as the North Atlantic Assembly, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden is a member, and the Western European Union Assembly, of which I have had the privilege to be a member. As the WEU is absorbed into the European Union and its Assembly becomes the European Defence and Security Assembly, it will be more than ever important that national parliamentarians continue to sit on the EDSA. Through their defence committees, debates and access to their Defence


Ministers, they will be able to ensure that their defence budgets are adequate and that the problems of personnel and policy are properly addressed.
It is important for Her Majesty's Government to respond positively, as the French Defence Minister has done. A press release of 7 April, following his meeting with Mr. Bühler, the President of the WEU Assembly, stated:
According to Minister Richard, the structures of the WEU and in particular the WEU Assembly offer the real advantage of involving all European countries—
that was the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden—
(the 28 WEU countries and, he suggested, possibly Malta and Cyprus in the future) in a uniquely "inclusive" forum.
I am sure that phrase will appeal to Her Majesty's Government.
I have 10 suggestions for improving the lot of our armed forces personnel. First, bounties should be payable at regular intervals for those who stay on—rather than paying gratuities to those who leave. Secondly, the Government should consider instituting personal, portable pensions for service men. There should be a funded pension scheme. Over time, that would permit more funds to be devoted to purely defence uses. Thirdly, there should be more generous education allowances for service men. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) rightly mentioned that in his speech.
Fourthly, there should be substantial investment in defence medical services, from which regulars and reservists ought to be allowed to benefit. Fifthly, there should be a joining bounty for regulars who join the reserves—a golden hello for regulars who stay on in reservist service—because we need their experience. Sixthly, recipients of the reserve forces decoration—the reserves do not have post denominationals—ought to have a bounty as a tangible sign that they not only are valued but will be rewarded for their service over many years.
Seventhly, we should increase specialist pay, particularly for categories of personnel such as aircrew who are in short supply. Eighthly, there should be a statutory right to council accommodation. Local authorities should be required to provide social housing, whether through the council or through housing associations, for ex-regular personnel who settle in their area. Next, we should introduce housing allowances. Many service men have so many commitments that they are unable to save enough to provide a permanent home for their families. If they had a housing allowance to enable them to do so, they would be less likely to leave the services early.
Last but not least—this point is debatable—those units that are recruiting well and which are up to their manning levels should be allowed to form additional battalions. Obviously, I have in mind the Gurkhas, but it could apply to other units. Units that do not recruit well and which fall seriously below their manning levels could be temporarily disbanded. In the Royal Air Force we have a system whereby squadrons are regularly formed, disbanded and reformed. It would be possible for the Army to be more flexible.
I hope that some of those suggestions are useful, and I welcome the chance to speak in the debate.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Rarely does a week go by without our being reminded of what we owe to our service men, past and present, and today is no exception. The Times carries the obituary of Rear-Admiral Douglas Parker, my constituent and a member of my constituency association. It sets out his record, saying that he was
the first British aviator to overfly and attack the Japanese mainland
towards the end of the war. He won the Distinguished Service Order and the Distinguished Service Cross for the fierce fighting in which he was involved at Okinawa. Earlier in the war, he was in the thick of the furious Operation Pedestal fight, the convoy that saved Malta.
That generation is getting to the age at which increasingly we expect to read their obituaries, so there will, sadly, be no shortage of such splendid records to remind us of all that we owe them.
It is a privilege for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), whom I first met in 1970 when I was an Oxford undergraduate and he was already an MP and, even then, an expert on defence by virtue of his RAF background. He was fighting then for strong defences for this country, and he has never wavered in that fight to this day.
I take this opportunity to thank the Under-Secretary, who has attended almost all of the debate, for his recent letter to me indicating that he will seriously investigate the case of Corporal Henry, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). Corporal Henry committed suicide after what seems to have been an extremely unjust court martial and disproportionate punishment.
In the short time available I want to do what I generally do in such debates, which is to say something about people, something about problems and something about the past. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) did Parliament a favour in drawing attention to the questionable value of dispensing with single-service debates and replacing them with separate debates on personnel, equipment, and so forth—not that that has prevented hon. Members from bringing into the debate whatever it was they had to say about our armed forces, whether or not it had to do with personnel.
In our previous debate on armed forces personnel, on 1 July last year, I drew attention to the campaign waged by the Officers Pension Society, urging that pensions be transferred to the widows of officers who married after retiring from the services. Today, I shall concentrate on an even more worthy cause that was drawn to my attention by my constituent, Mr. Trevor Emans of Holbury, who was shocked to read about the way in which St. Dunstan's—the charity for service men and women who have been blinded in the service of their country—had been refused a lottery grant.
Let me tell the House about St. Dunstan's. It was founded in 1915 by Sir Arthur Pearson, of the newspaper publishing family, in the belief that those who came back from the first world war blinded should be cared for with the greatest commitment that society could afford, not reduced to beggary in the streets. St. Dunstan's takes in service men and women aged 19 to 90, even if blindness is a delayed effect of their service. It teaches those men


and women how to manage basic daily tasks, and those who are of employable age are taught to master a trade, from shopkeeping to the handling of computers. Then they are shown how to re-enter communities.
St. Dunstan's has about 11 welfare officers who visit St. Dunstaners, as they are called, at home or at work. The aim is to make those people, to whom we owe so much, as independent as possible and to enable them to live as fulfilled a life as possible. The charity owns about 500 properties, mostly two-bedroom bungalows; and there are about 2,600 people on the books, including a limited number of spouses, widows or widowers of St. Dunstaners and about 30 to 40 dependent children. The charity's main base is at Ovingdean near Brighton, but 95 per cent. of the gallant veterans for whom it cares live in their own homes.
St. Dunstan's lost its last veteran of world war one only in 1998, at the age of 99. He was cared for by that charity from 1916 to 1998. Not many charities offer, as part of their raison d'être, such long-term care for anyone. Therein lies the source of the problem. Seventy per cent. of the people for whom the charity cares were injured in world war two, and the other 30 per cent. in the post-war era. The problem is that long-term care such as St. Dunstan's provides must, to a considerable extent, be funded from the interest derived from investments. It is easy for critics to point out that the charity has about £90 million in assets—which it has had—and so does not need help. However, those assets cannot be dispensed with: they pay for the buildings and are, above all, used for the investment income that provides only one third of the value of the support the charity gives to the 2,600 St. Dunstaners on its books.
At the time when the request was made to the national lottery, St. Dunstan's was hoping to extend its rehabilitation and training unit and to install specialist accommodation for those receiving rehabilitation and training, such as the handless blind—think about that: the handless blind. The charity was hoping to get a new bus that would have on board the sort of toilet facilities and wheelchair access facilities that would enable the more severely disabled St. Dunstaners to go on trips from which they are currently excluded.
I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you were present at Prime Minister's Question Time on 3 November last, but I was, and I do not think that I have ever seen the Prime Minister so discomfited. It is to the credit of Liberal Democrat Members that he was. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) had drawn Question 2, and this is what he asked:
The millennium dome … entails the expenditure of £758 million. Of that, £399 million is from the lottery. How does the Prime Minister square with that the fact that St. Dunstan's, which cares for those who have been blinded in the service of their country, has applied … for lottery grants and has not received any?
The Prime Minister replied:
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that four fifths of the lottery stream goes to a host of other lottery causes. I cannot comment on the particular cause to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention.
At that moment, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), whom I am delighted to see in his place at this debate, made a timely sedentary intervention.

"Make inquiries then," he shouted across the Chamber, stinging the Prime Minister into the following response:
I am happy to make inquiries, but it is not for me to distribute lottery money. That is done by the relevant organisation.—[Official Report, 3 November 1999: Vol. 337, c. 290.]
For once, that was a new Labour promise that was apparently not broken. Within nine days of that exchange in the Chamber, something very interesting happened. The chief fundraiser for St. Dunstan's was invited on to the "You and Yours" programme on Friday 12 November 1999, only to be, as he described it subsequently, raped on radio by John Waite.
I do not know why that person was invited on to the programme at that time in order for it to present a deeply hostile and one-sided attack on St. Dunstan's, arguing that the charity was far too wealthy and did not need lottery money. That was done, incidentally, in a pre-recorded slot that the person who was interviewed on the programme was forbidden to hear in advance. I do not know whether that timing was sheer coincidence, or whether it was yet another favour that the BBC was doing for its new Labour friends—

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Disgraceful.

Dr. Lewis: If they are honest with themselves, hon. Members in all parts of the House will, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, consider that disgraceful.
The charity does not have the money to carry out a roof replacement scheme, which means that its large swimming bath at the main establishment at Ovingdean cannot be used, even though it is both recreational and designed for hydrotherapy. It cannot be used for fear of masonry falling on the people using it. That is a desperate situation, and it is a no-fault situation. The building is simply suffering from the form of concrete cancer that has affected so many structures put up in the 1960s.
St. Dunstan's also needs specialist bathrooms. There was no chance of getting them without that money, but now the charity is to try again. There is reason for hope. The Charity Commissioners have all along been carefully monitoring the situation, to determine whether St. Dunstan's was too wealthy to go on raising money. They decided some years back that it was, but subsequently realised that the charity did need to go on raising money, once its reserves ran down.
The Charity Commissioners have just agreed that, from 2 March, St. Dunstan's can expand its activities to include those people who were in the services and have become seriously visually impaired, virtually to the point of blindness, even if that is not directly attributable to being in action. As a condition, the Charity Commissioners said that St. Dunstan's must ring-fence its existing resources so that only those formerly served by the charity will receive the interest from them. The National Lottery Charities Board therefore has an opportunity to do a U-turn and make amends belatedly for its previous insensitive and unacceptable refusal.
I want to refer briefly to one more event. On 1 June, the unveiling ceremony of a new national memorial to the 6,000 members of the Fleet Air Arm who laid down their lives in defence of this country will take place in Victoria embankment gardens. I know that the House is well aware of the importance of that good cause because I had the privilege of tabling an early-day motion before Armistice


day last year when I gathered 100 signatures from all parties in 48 hours. It was retabled as early-day motion 16 and it now has 137 signatures.
We all pay routine obeisance to the memories of those who died, but I want to conclude by referring to one of the incidents that involved 13 of those 6,000 people who lost their lives. They are the 13 Swordfish aircrew who lost their lives on 12 February 1942 when 18 airmen in six Swordfish attacked the German battle-cruiser fleet that was sailing up the English channel from Brest to the safety of German waters.
The deed is well known but is diminishing in the public perception as time goes by. If pushed, most people could remember that Eugene Esmonde, the leader of the squadron, was subsequently awarded the Victoria Cross. On the day before his last flight, he had been invested with the Distinguished Service Order for being the first man to torpedo the Bismarck.
When the aeroplanes went in, the crews knew that they had no chance. Their top speed was just 90 knots, the battle fleet was sailing away from them at 30 knots, and they were easy targets. I conclude with the account by Terence Robertson of what faced the last three aircraft. He writes:
They crossed the outer screen, approached the inner, losing height. Struggling to fly, bodies in ribbons, wings like skeletons with the struts showing bare and crews who must not only be wounded but dead or dying, they crossed the line of destroyers and met the smoky spumes of water thrown up by the heavy ships' "water-spout" barrage … It is officially presumed that they dropped their torpedoes before the end. In this event it must also be assumed that they came out from that horrible cascade of cordite and water with the mask of death already set on their faces as they followed Eugene Esmonde into the Narrow Sea.
Neither the three Swordfish nor the nine youngsters who manned them were ever seen again.
We will remember them and the others of the 6,000 on 1 June.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I apologise for not having been present throughout the debate, although I heard the opening speeches. One reason for my absence was my participation in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Hon. Members will understand the pressures under which we work.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak briefly about armed services personnel. I am especially pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who spoke extremely well, especially about the debt that we owe to others. That is too easily forgotten in modern society.
I shall not speak about the need to increase defence spending, although it exists. I shall not speak of overstretch or overcommitment. I shall not talk about undermanning. Instead, I shall concentrate on the reasons for the problem with recruitment and retention, and why people join and stay in the armed forces.
The Minister commented on how he is addressing the disincentives to service life. Although he made some useful points, he may have missed one or two. I shall elaborate. When I joined the Army in 1974, a fifth of my graduate course had been to Oxford university and some

had been to Cambridge or others. If one is allowed to say so in these politically correct, non-elitist times, there were people from good, established universities and people who had had other opportunities. I trust that good graduates from good universities still join the armed forces, but they are attracted elsewhere by enormous City bonuses and dot.com companies, which we probably do not understand. Of course money is an issue, but it was in 1974 when I joined and many people say that the disincentive is the status and perception of the armed forces in society.
We know that the armed forces are still highly regarded—one has only to think of their work in Bosnia and Kosovo to know that—but I am always amazed when Members from other parties, particularly those on the left of the Labour party, say, "We should get the British Army in here. It would do the job so much better." I was particularly struck by that in Macedonia and Albania, where the Army did a good job. The forces are extremely good, but the issue is status and their treatment by society and the Government who employ them.
I have some brief points to make. I did two tours in Northern Ireland and saw friends killed out there. I went to too many funerals. Like the Royal Ulster Constabulary, many who served wonder whether it was worth it: British soldiers go to court charged with murder for doing what they believed to be their duty, whereas Adams and McGuinness get into government. We all know that they have been and probably still are on the IRA Council. I cannot speak for others, but I know that it hurts ordinary British soldiers to see people involved in terrorism admitted to government. Funnily enough, most service people would say, "All right, that is acceptable. It is a political decision and we will go that far for peace." However, that is but one problem. The second is the ethos of the armed forces.
The forces are different. They are fed up to the back teeth with political correctness and being told, "Gosh, you soldiers, sailors and airmen are marvellous, but you have to change because you do not live up to what we think society should be." I want to discuss the physical standards for women. I am delighted that they have joined, but if I or the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is about to make the wind-up speech, were stuck on a battlefield with a bullet wound in the leg, I would want a strong man to pick me up. He would agree, because very few women could do it. It is as simple as that.
I am not going to bang on about homosexuality. There have always been homosexuals in the armed forces, but if soldiers, sailors and airmen who are hot-bedding—perhaps sharing beds in submarines—do not want to share bunks with homosexuals, why must they be forced so to do? In my view, political correctness is undermining the armed forces, and they think so as well. I refer briefly to the European convention on human rights. There will be many court cases about people being told off by their commanding officer. They are already taking place, which is a great pity, and that is but part of what is undermining the ethos of the armed forces.
Hon. Members will be glad to know that I am on my final point as the wind-up speeches are about to start. The armed forces like to be valued and appreciated, which is normal. We all like to be appreciated—we know that as politicians.

Dr. Moonie: I appreciate you, Andrew.

Mr. Robathan: I thank the Minister for his sedentary intervention.
The issues are not only pay, allowances and the attack on the old-fashioned way in which members of the armed forces do things, but the way in which they are perceived by Ministers and their political masters. In October, three of the five Foot Guards battalions were on operations in Northern Ireland. The Irish Guards were still in Kosovo, where they were the first battalion into Pristina. At Christmas, while we were enjoying our turkey with our feet up, two battalions were still running around the streets of Northern Ireland, working on behalf of the Government and the people of this country. Yet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whom they were serving directly in a security role, did not thank them. He called them chinless wonders. Now the armed forces know how they are regarded at the dinner parties of the chattering classes in Hampstead and Islington. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) laugh. Let me tell her that that is what soldiers with whom I served say to me. They are very upset. Perhaps no one should be surprised when members of the armed forces do not wish to remain there.
I note in passing that another chinless wonder has just walked in.
I assure Labour Members that this is what the three of us on this side feel. No one should be surprised when armed forces personnel have a sense of being undervalued and under-appreciated. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to do what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not done, and apologise for the fact that a huge number of guardsmen have given their lives, are still serving, or have given a lifetime of service to this country. Guardsmen are still doing that in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the Minister will apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The debate has provided us with an invaluable opportunity to examine the whole issue of defence, defence policy and our defence establishment from the point of view of those who serve in the armed forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested that we might revert to the system of individual service debates, which could be held in Westminster Hall. I think there might be great merit in that, but it would have been a pity if we had not had this opportunity to consider the question of armed forces personnel as a discrete subject.
Another interesting feature of the debate—to which, unfortunately, we have become used during defence debates—was the extraordinary lack of interest in, let alone commitment to, the subject on the part of Labour Members. The Labour party has a vast majority over all other parties: it has far more than twice as many MPs as my party. However, we have heard three speeches from Labour Back Benchers, two from members of other parties, and six from the Conservative Opposition. That, I think, says it all.
Nevertheless, I want to do justice to the speeches of Labour Members. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has served in our forces and

speaks with knowledge and experience. He paid a striking tribute to the value of military training, which contrasted with some of the politically correct speeches that we heard from other Labour Members.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), speaking for the Liberal Democrat party, dealt in a statesmanlike manner with the urgent need for decisions to be made on strategic airlift. He mentioned the roll-on roll-off issue, with which I shall deal shortly; not surprisingly, he also mentioned his horror—widely shared by Conservative Members and no doubt also shared, more discreetly, by Labour Members—at the reported remarks of the Secretary of State about metal bashing no longer being a national asset. As the Secretary of State is here, perhaps he will take the opportunity to set the record straight.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said—I think every member of the official Opposition will agree—that, if the European security and defence identity is to proceed at all, it must be capability led. Nothing could be more disastrous than an ESDI that did not represent a substantial increase in the actual commitment of the European allies to provide the resources that are necessary for our common defence; indeed, an ESDI on that false basis would be not just useless but extremely dangerous.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), speaking as a member of the Defence Committee, seems to have adopted the politically correct agenda. She said that everyone should be subject to the same rules and regulations. I am afraid I must disagree: there is something special about the armed forces. There is something special about service in them, and about the people who are prepared to commit themselves to that service and to risk their lives in consequence. It is important for the armed services to continue to be based on the traditional values of discipline, duty, selflessness, coolness and steadiness under fire. All those values are discounted in our modern, politically correct society. Nothing would be more disastrous than to introduce the politically correct culture into the armed forces.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made a powerful speech. He stated—it cannot be stated too often, or emphasised too greatly—that good armed forces do not happen by accident. They are the result of years of training, hard work and people going into the armed forces who are prepared to put up with that degree of discipline, sheer personal discomfort and disruption to their lives. There must be worries in some circles as to whether society as it evolves will continue to produce enough people who are prepared to make such a sacrifice. We will all suffer if that is not the case.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a single issue: the overseas allowances that are paid when people are resident in Germany, but then are lost when they serve in former Yugoslavia. A similar point was made about London allowances by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. I hope that we shall get a response on that from the Minister.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) quite rightly went into procurement issues. He talked about the mess-up of the Tornado refurbishment and conversion programme: the GR1-GR4 programme. It has taken two years and the problems still do not seem to have been sorted out.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the SA80. The Labour party loves to say that that problem has been with us for a long time. It certainly has: it does not seem to have resolved it in the past three years. It is about time that the Government did what a Government are supposed to do: take decisive action to resolve the problem in short order or to make alternative arrangements. As I have said at the Dispatch Box before, having an unreliable rifle is a nightmare.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Bowman, which was several years behind schedule when the Labour party came to power. Now it is twice that period behind schedule: it is six, seven or eight years behind schedule. Again, that is not good enough. He talked about the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. I thought at one moment that he was making a sales pitch for Raytheon, with which Shorts had a relationship, but I later discovered that his constituent has a bet each way. No doubt, whatever the result of the Government's deliberations, he will be a happy man.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) reminded us that the real task of the armed forces is to prepare for high-intensity warfare. We know that it is precisely by preparing for that and by having the equipment, men and training available to cope with it, if it comes, that we provide the best possible deterrent and make it least likely that those skills will have to be used. Those must be available, as must the equipment to back them up. Nothing must be done in any way to deplete or erode the high level of training that is needed for high-intensity warfare. We must bear that in mind in peacekeeping operations and in other uses of our armed forces personnel, as my right hon. Friend said. He made it clear that it would be a great mistake to cut the budget any further.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) talked about the recruitment of women. Apparently, he wants quotas for women. Conservative Members do not believe in quotas in any context. That seems a particularly ill-considered suggestion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) talked about the importance of getting ESDI right. He is right about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) congratulated the Government, which shows that Conservative Members are open-minded, generous and prepared to give credit where it is due. We regret just that there are so few occasions when it is due. He congratulated the Government on their families taskforce. I am happy to endorse that congratulation.
My hon. Friend made it clear that we cannot expect the United States to go on making an utterly disproportionate contribution to the security of the world, including in our time zone. Based on his considerable knowledge of reserve forces throughout the world, he revealed some interesting facts about the United States having not just 10 regular divisions, but 13 national guard divisions, which can be mobilised to support them. My hon. Friend also talked about the way in which our Territorial Army has been run down not merely quantitatively, but qualitatively, and the fact that the so-called 15 remaining infantry battalions are not battalions at all—they are probably not effective even as companies. It is a

disgraceful state of affairs. He also mentioned how important it is to have not only shop-window, high-profile equipment, but necessary back-up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that the quality of our armed forces is quite exceptional. He also said, however, that the quantity is quite inadequate, and he is right about that. He also made 10 interesting suggestions that I, for one, will certainly be thinking about very carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made an eloquent appeal for St. Dunstan's and gave a moving account of the Channel Dash operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) rightly pointed out how revolting it is that we have Ministers who, when they are on their best behaviour, say how good and splendid our armed forces are and how much they are to be admired, but who, when they let down their guard, make thoroughly revolting remarks.

Mr. Brazier: They should apologise.

Mr. Davies: Yes, they should.
In the past two months, since I started the job of Opposition Defence spokesman, it has become clear to me that the strategic defence review is in many respects very inadequate. It is certainly vapid and vague in many spheres, and it certainly does not emphasise sufficiently home defence. One might also perhaps have liked to have more frigates. The proposals on the TA were certainly a great mistake.
Parts of the SDR, however, are fine as a business plan. It would be fine if the Government had the slightest intention of implementing them. As we proceed, however, we realise that the SDR is another example of clever, new Labour smoke and mirrors. It is spin-doctoring, but it is not intended to be reality.
The important procurement decisions have still not been taken, and the Government have been proceeding to run down our defence effort by continually cutting the defence budget. As I have said before, one cannot be serious about defence and plan annually—year in, year out—to take 2 or 3 per cent. in real terms from the defence budget. One cannot do that and be serious about defence.
Ministers who call themselves Defence Ministers have now abdicated completely responsibility to the Treasury. We have an extraordinary situation in which the Treasury is getting involved in absolutely everything. The Treasury is taking over procurement decisions, meeting with Raytheon and Boeing on the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile system and strategic airlift. The Treasury is taking those decisions.
One thing that we had better find out today is whether the Treasury is taking the key decision on roll/on-roll off/ferries. If the Treasury is not taking the decision, who is? I tabled a written parliamentary question on the issue about 10 days ago, but I have not yet received a reply.
When the Government decided on a private finance initiative structure for that procurement, did they realise that the effect would be to remove from the project the protection on defence procurement offered under the treaty, thereby making it impossible for the Government to give the order to British yards if a lower-cost bid came in from elsewhere? Or did the Treasury know perfectly


well that that would be the consequence, and therefore establish a PFI project in the hope that it could deny all responsibility?
Our yards are entitled to believe that they will receive some preference in placing the order. It is quite certain that there is not a cat in hell's chance that our yards could bid successfully for military vessels for any other major industrialised European Union country, certainly not for France or Germany. The Government have established an unlevel playing field. Did they do it by incompetence and inadvertence, or did they do it deliberately, thinking that they would have an excuse for an utterly unforgivable situation?
Of course, one could argue for obtaining the benefits of competition within the European Union, but one certainly could not make a coherent or respectable argument for unilateral disarmament—for saying that other shipyards can bid for our orders, but our shipyards cannot bid for anyone else's orders; at least, one could not do that unless one had complete contempt for Britain's manufacturing base and believed that metal bashing was no longer a national asset. We had better have an answer to that this evening, as there is great concern throughout the country from an industrial and defence point of view.
The defence of the country is no longer in the hands of people who care about defence; it is in the hands of the new Labour Treasury. There can be no less safe hands for the defence of this country than that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate my hon. Friends on speaking to the theme of the debate today. Most of what I listened to from Opposition Members was at best tangential, but one can forgive them that as clearly they have nothing worth saying on the subject of personnel. [Interruption.] will carry on saying that until they do.
We have heard, during today's debate, how our armed forces are able to act as a force for good in the world from Northern Ireland to Kosovo to the Gulf. They work to alleviate suffering, build trust and prevent conflict. Our ability to do all those things depends, above all, on one factor—the quality of our people. I intend to concentrate most of my remarks on aspects of our services for our people, which give rise to justifiable concern. If there is any time left, I shall attempt to answer points raised during the debate. I will not have time to take interventions. [Interruption.] If people want me to take interventions, they should make shorter speeches.
I am pleased to say that the quality of our people is immensely high. We ask a lot of them, and they never let us down. However, this is a two-way street. In return for their professionalism, loyalty and courage, we must look after them and their families. The policy for people—a key part of the strategic defence review—is delivering that. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has described the programme of change that we have introduced through initiatives such as the service families taskforce, the learning forces initiative and the overarching personnel strategy.
I make no apology for saying that the watchword of this Government is modernisation. and the armed forces are central to this process. Hence, our policy for people remains our highest priority short of actual operations,

because without the right people we cannot achieve all of the other things that are necessary to modernise Britain's defence.
I wish to refer to some of my areas of responsibility. First, I wish to refer to the defence medical services. As a doctor, I am delighted that that is one of my ministerial responsibilities. First, I pay tribute to the excellent support that they provide to our armed forces, both at home and overseas—particularly in the deployments in Bosnia and Kosovo. They provide first-class medical care to British forces. It is a further testament to their skill and professionalism that they also provide medical care to local civilian populations on a wide range of humanitarian operations, particularly in the Balkans.
The House will be well aware of the problems besetting the defence medical services—problems which this Government inherited. A succession of reviews—culminating in the now notorious defence costs study 15 in 1994—left the defence medical services with low morale and too few people. It is a bitter irony that, by 1997, the defence medical services themselves were haemorrhaging.
The defence medical services were chronically underfunded and, worse, were losing people at a rate that threatened our armed forces' capability to meet their operational commitments. One of the Government's highest priorities has been to reverse the shortages in defence medical manpower and equipment. The changes we are making as a result of the strategic defence review and our new strategy for the defence medical services are hard evidence of our commitments to medical care.

Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I always understood that a wind-up speech was meant to encapsulate the debate, and was not a scripted speech to be read out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Ministers must wind up the debate as they see fit.

Dr. Moonie: A wee bit of remedial education on the other side would not come amiss.

Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Moonie: Having listened to five minutes of drivel from the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he has any right to speak now.

Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister not take an intervention?

Dr. Moonie: No. Sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the Chair to decide when hon. Members should resume their seats. Perhaps we could carry on in a slightly calmer atmosphere. This is a very important debate.

Dr. Moonie: I have noticed no loss of calm in myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but a certain lack of self-control on the other side, perhaps.
We have already provided an additional £140 million for medical manpower and equipment. That extra funding covers the four years to April 2002. More money will be


made available after that. Let there be no doubt that, as in every other area of defence, people are at the very heart of the defence medical services. Making good the current shortfalls of medical personnel is the single greatest problem facing them.
I am pleased to say that there is now some evidence that the high rate of people leaving the defence medical services is levelling out, and that the manning situation is stabilising. Recruitment into training is generally satisfactory, but it takes several years to train medical personnel and, in the case of surgeons, a minimum of eight years. If we are to see any significant improvement in the short to medium term, we need to recruit directly fully or partially trained personnel. That has proved difficult in the past and work has been put in hand to identify the obstacles to direct entry recruitment.
I know that defence accommodation is a matter of great concern among hon. Members. It is a matter for which I have responsibility, and one that greatly affects morale among both single and married service men and women. Our armed forces are as good as any in the world, and better in most cases. We ask a lot of them, and they have a right to expect the best in return, in terms not only of training, equipment and firepower, but of the way in which they are looked after as people.
We are committed to caring for our people and their families across the spectrum of their needs. We have set in hand an extensive programme of improvements to existing accommodation, together with the construction of new-build housing at a number of defence establishments. I hope that our approach of—to use the usual phrase—joined-up government has shown that, working with local authorities, other Departments and the private sector, we can provide the best accommodation for our people.
We have a good working relationship with Annington Homes, which has bought most of the service families quarters, and we have plans for public-private partnership arrangements to provide new housing. The programme of releasing property to Annington Homes has been a great success, and we are running ahead of the numbers envisaged at the time of sale, so far having released a total of 3,100 properties, with a further 3,000 releases planned for this year.
When accommodation is too old to be repaired, we have plans for new build. Private finance initiative contracts have been placed to provide new properties at RAF Lossiemouth, Cosford and Shawbury, at RNAS Yeovilton and in central Scotland. Two further contracts are currently being negotiated to build new properties in Bristol, Bath, Portsmouth, Shrivenham and Wattisham.
We are also making improvements to the accommodation available to our single service men and women. We appreciate how important the standard of accommodation is, and we are committed to giving them what they deserve. In 1998, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces directed that a steering group be set up at a very senior level in the Ministry of Defence to establish a co-ordinated approach to managing the single living accommodation across the three services. That was as a direct result of the strategic defence review and, again, I believe that our approach has shown that we can bring real success in the short term.
For example, the Royal Navy has invested a total of more than 10 million in flats at HMS Dryad and Bickleigh barracks, the Army has just finished improving Robertson barracks at Swanton Morley in Norfolk and there are a further 10 programmes to improve the standard of Army single living accommodation across the UK, ranging from Southampton to Catterick.
We are well aware of some of the problems with the existing accommodation at Aldershot, and a programme of improvement has started there. I know that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) would have liked to be here but had to leave.
On the subject of overstretch, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces mentioned the many improvements that we have made to the terms and conditions under which service men and women have to exist, and we remain firmly committed to tackling overstretch in the armed forces.
I was asked a specific question on the statistics for the three services, and it is true that we tend to use the Army as the reference point. It is difficult to give the figures, because all three services use different methods for calculating what they consider to be overstretch and what they consider to be the active deployment of personnel. They have different environments, structures and operational postures, so it is hardly surprising that they are different, but that means that it is difficult to make direct comparisons of relative overstretch levels.
The Navy include all seagoing personnel in their figures, the Army includes those deploying, deployed and recovering from operational duties, and the RAF provides statistics only for those physically deployed away from base. That explains why the RAF gives a comparatively low figure of 3.4 per cent. of trained strength on deployment. The Navy often has up to 40 per cent. of its serving personnel on active duty—in other words, at sea—and the Army has managed to reduce its figure to 27 per cent. from its previously much higher levels.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned fast-jet pilots. Although we are short of pilots, we are unable to put in the air only nine aircraft, so the situation is not as bad as it sounds.

Mr. Key: It is bad enough.

Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman should not get me wrong. We do not take overstretch lightly, and that is why my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces spent so much time on it earlier and why I am trying to address it further now. It is important as one of the major factors affecting operational effectiveness and morale. A wide range of measures are in hand to correct the problem, especially in the RAF, including more recruitment, putting more entrants into cockpits more quickly, and retaining service personnel through the link-up scheme. That will fund RAF pilots to gain commercial pilot licences in return for a guaranteed period of service and phased release for employment in commercial airline companies. Innovative approaches such as that should pay off in the medium term.
Retention is another area of major concern and we are tackling it as a high priority. In addition to all the policy for people initiatives that we have introduced, we have tried to concentrate on areas such as better terms and conditions of service, improvements in pay and


allowances, better quality of training and opportunities to gain civilian qualifications. In the Navy, we are making specific attempts to improve single living accommodation, to provide additional longer service at sea bonus payments for excessive preparation, which were introduced in December. We are trialling satellite television to try to improve the quality of time spent at sea, and we are fitting e-mail and internet facilities. The link-up scheme will also include Sea Harrier pilots.
In the Army, officer and soldier premature voluntary retirement rates seem to have stabilised at lower rates this year, and while we are still concerned about junior officers the overall position is not as bad as Opposition Members might have feared. We are keeping the situation under constant review. We are also trying to improve living accommodation. I visited some single living accommodation yesterday, which was not the worst by any means, but I am well aware of the problems with which single soldiers have to contend. I assure the House that I shall deal with them as quickly as possible. We are trying to reduce turbulence for personnel and their families in the Army, and I intend to give further direction on that point to the Defence Housing Executive and through the chain of command—

It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

Allotments, Prestonville

7 pm

Mr. David Lepper: I am pleased to present a petition from Prestonville Community Association in my constituency, which is signed by 1,128 residents and concerns land for which the association has planning permission for allotments and a wildlife site, but on which the owners, Rail Property Limited, are seeking permission to build flats.
The petition
Declares that allotment land and wildlife areas in urban environments, such as the allotment land adjacent to 55 Highcroft Villas, Brighton should be preserved, protected and enhanced for the benefit of local people.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do all in his power to prevent building developments from taking place on allotment land in general and specifically on the land at Highcroft Villas Brighton.

To lie upon the Table.

Burials and Cremations

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Eric Martlew: I am delighted to have been granted this debate, especially as the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), will reply. I understand that he has cancelled an overseas visit to reply—or so one of his ministerial colleagues told me.
The matter is serious. Some people may feel that the debate should have taken place in January when we had major problems with funeral delays, but I have waited nine weeks to get it. It would have been more relevant then, but I want to try to ensure that we never again have the problems that we experienced this January.
I ask my right hon. Friend to cast his mind back to January, when we had a flu epidemic. We saw vivid pictures on television—hospital morgues were full and refrigerated vehicles had to be put in hospital car parks to store the bodies because they could not be buried directly and on time.
At the time, the view was that it was a national health service problem. The reality is that the NHS was left with the problem and the cause lies elsewhere. During this debate, I shall discuss what went wrong and how, perhaps, this Parliament and the Government can help to put it right.
There is no doubt that the way in which we dealt with the problem varied during the flu outbreak in January. In some parts of Essex, for example, bereaved relatives had to wait more than two weeks to bury their loved ones. In one area, cremations were delayed by more than a month, although the customary wait was four or five days.
That sort of delay has awful consequences. In one family, an elderly lady died and her daughter flew in from America to be told that the burial could not take place for two weeks. She returned to the United States, but shortly afterwards her father died. She flew back to this country and was told that the burial could not take place for nearly a month. Again, she had to return home to America and miss the funeral. On top of the sadness of bereavement, people had the trauma of being unable to attend the funeral.
In this country, a funeral is a great tradition. It is a watershed in the grieving process. After the funeral we continue to grieve, but we try to put our lives back together. That is not possible if one has to wait a month for the funeral. In many areas, one finishes work when a close family member dies and one does not return until after the funeral. That cannot happen if the funeral takes place a month after the death. People are left in emotional limbo.
I am not raising this matter because I have a problem in my constituency—quite the reverse. Carlisle has an excellent burial and bereavement service. I pay special tribute to Mr. Ken West, the bereavement service manager of the city council, and his staff for the dedicated way in which they not only ensure that the services are efficient, but work towards improving them and making sure that the bereaved are consulted as well as comforted. The standard in Carlisle is very high—only this week it received national recognition. I congratulate the staff and Mr. Ken West.
It is not as though the fact that there are more deaths in the winter than in the summer is any surprise. I have statistics on mortality from the House of Commons Library from 1841 to 1997—more than 150 years. The common factor is that during the winter months, between January and March, there is a 20, 25 or 30 per cent. increase in the number of deaths in this country compared with the summer quarter. We have always known that, but now we have statistics going back 150 years showing it to be the case. So why are we so ill prepared?
I would like to discuss what I believe to be the main reasons for delays in funeral services and for the differing standards throughout the country. The main cause for concern is that there is no industry standard for bereavement services or funeral delays. For example, this winter there were delays of up to four weeks in Romford. I understand that in Shrewsbury, in the winter, it is not unusual to have delays in excess of two weeks. In Carlisle, the maximum delay was eight days. That was during the flu epidemic; it was nothing to do with any problems with the burial service, but with the fact that the funeral directors could not cope.
There are variations. There are no Government targets. This is a very sensitive issue, and I believe that people expect the Government to set a standard. I hope that their best value policy will change the situation. That is assuming that the Audit Commission sees waiting times as a performance indicator which should be met by all local authorities.
At present, there is only one industry standard. The voluntary charter of bereavement was written by Mr. Ken West, the Carlisle bereavement manager, in 1997 for the Institute of Burial and Cremation Administration. It is a very interesting document, which gives performance targets. It says that charter members should specify maximum funeral waiting times and develop strategies for handling high death rates. Not only do charter members have a target, they know how to cope with the winter problems. Unfortunately, this is a voluntary code. There are only 30 or so charter members, which leaves more than 200 local authorities without a common standard, or any standard at all.
I come now to other factors. I do not think that people should be expected to work on bank holidays at Christmas and the new year, but that means a backlog of funerals in January. I see no reason why Christmas eve, for example, could not be a normal day for funerals, or why the hours during which funerals are held could not be extended in the period between Christmas and new year.
Finance is not the problem. Crematoriums are public facilities, but they are often very profitable. However, local authorities seem more keen on taking the money than on paying for extended days, more staff or overtime. That matter needs to be looked at seriously. Problems also arise with death certificates, post mortems and cremation certificates. Funeral directors cannot arrange a funeral until a death certificate or cremation certificate has been issued. Delays are often caused when doctors do not sign those certificates. The cremation certificate is not provided by the national health service. In fact, it costs £70 to get that certificate signed. It is up to the British Medical Association to ensure that there is adequate cover on hand to prevent delays in signing.
Facilities also need to be considered. Sometimes the people performing a cremation are very inefficient. In crematoriums with two chapels, both could be used at the same time. However, pressure of numbers sometimes causes cremators to reduce the length of funeral services. That cannot be right. People are entitled to a dignified funeral, and it is wrong to squeeze a service into 20 minutes because of pressure of numbers. We should look to increase the number of chapels available for such services.
The big problem is one of inflexibility. We have been doing things in certain ways for years. Local authorities do not really pay attention to cremations and funerals—I doubt that many councillors get telephoned with complaints about delays in funerals. People ring them because their bins have not been emptied, but not about funerals. Local authorities should think about that problem.
The private sector has moved in and built various facilities. In Bristol, for example, the waiting time for funerals has been reduced. However, local authorities still fear that that will cost them money. Planning obstructions seem to be put in the way of the construction of private facilities, so they cannot set up in competition with the public facilities and local authorities do not lose the income from funerals and cremations.
The National Association of Funeral Directors wrote to me on this matter giving reasons for the delays that have been suffered. First, it said that the extended Christmas holiday period—when there were an extra three or four days off—led to delays of up to four weeks. I accept that delays were caused, but they were not of four weeks. Secondly, the association said that doctors were not available to sign death certificates and that there was a backlog in the coroner's court. That deserves attention. Thirdly, it mentioned the increased incidence of deaths caused by the flu epidemic, and I accept that that happened. Finally, it said that the flu virus took a toll among people working in the cemeteries, and that problems arose when they took time off for illness. However, the association noted that crematoriums did not extend their hours of operation to allow more time for funerals to take place. The association's chief executive officer, Mr. Alan Slater, said that the delays were not the responsibility of the association, and I have to accept that.
In the past, there has been a cosy relationship between the association's members and local authorities. Everyone likes an easy day, working from 9 am to 4 pm, Monday to Friday, but the association's members know that their business will not disappear. They hold the monopoly in the market and, in their view, a funeral that is delayed can be slotted in later. I think that, in the main, local authorities were at fault for funeral delays this winter.
It would seem that the National Association of Funeral Directors has a problem with charging. Charges have increased for funerals throughout the country by about 25 per cent. in the past two years. It has been suggested that that is because major companies are moving in, taking over the old, traditional family businesses, exploiting the situation and increasing prices. I do not want to go into that today, but it may be something for the Competition Commission to examine in future.
Instead, I shall suggest where the Government fit into the issue. They seem not to have a role or to take a role. My right hon. Friend is a Home Office Minister who deals, of course, with Home Office legislation. There are,


of course, Ministers who deal with the health aspects, the consumer problems and the social fund implications of funerals. We need to have a Government who are more proactive in this area who will set high standards for the service throughout the country. I would welcome an in-depth assessment of the industry by the Audit Commission and the setting of national benchmarks by which all authorities could be judged.
The voluntary charter for bereavement could form the basis of a policy that would be developed to ensure that no matter where someone lives, or more importantly where he dies, there will be a quality of service of which that person and the bereaved can be assured. Best practice would thereby be assured.
I hope that the Government will consider these matters. They have been told that there is a problem, and I look forward to my right hon. Friend's response. Perhaps I might meet him soon, or one of his colleagues, to consider how we might make progress. We cannot allow the same problem to confront us next year. If that happens, the House and the Government must bear some of the responsibility.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has raised an important concern, whose importance is not reflected in any way by the attendance in the Chamber. The issue goes to the welfare and concerns of the bereaved, who are at their most vulnerable when the funeral of a loved one is delayed. That can have a particularly damaging impact on their capacity to come to terms with their great and tragic loss.
As my hon. Friend said in a careful and thoughtful contribution, this is a complex matter—because of the number of Government Departments involved and because of the various stages and constituent parts that go to ensuring that a bereaved family can secure the burial or cremation of their loved one with due expedition.
I have listened keenly to my hon. Friend. We take seriously the issue of delay, and it is important to consider it in its wider perspective. Of course, as my hon. Friend will realise, many burials and cremations take place each year, and a comparatively small number of them are subject to delay. In fact, relatively few complaints are made; last year, the Home Office received one about a delay. Nevertheless, one complaint is one too many, and we accept that there are wider concerns. My hon. Friend has provided examples of such concerns, and each one of them is important and significant to the bereaved families involved. I am pleased that he has been able to raise this matter, because those families deserve assurances that the House pays careful attention to it and that the Government do all that they can to address the problems that arise.

Mr. Martlew: The fact that the Home Office has received only one complaint, when in January there were delays of more than four weeks, suggests not that the issue affects only a few people, but that people do not think that the Government have an input. Many people were affected this winter.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is true that we must be cautious before we draw conclusions from the number of complaints that central

Government Departments receive. Members of the public may be correct in their perception that there is only a limited amount that the Government can do to deal with the problem, bearing in mind the number of agencies, organisations and authorities that have an input in determining whether there is a delay in any particular case. Nevertheless, all that can be done by Government given those limitations should be done, and we are determined to ensure that it is.
I shall refer to the history of this issue, which goes back to the origins of local government's and local communities' responsibility for funerals. Funeral services have always been provided by and on behalf of the local community. Until the beginning of the 19th century, responsibility for record keeping and provision of burial grounds lay with the Church. Now, once deaths have been registered by local registrars, funerals are organised by local funeral directors, using local municipal or private cremation and burial facilities. Local arrangements can understandably be far more responsive to the community's circumstances and needs.
It is perfectly true that no national standards have been set for the timeliness of funerals. Equally, there have never been national standards for the provision of burial or cremation facilities. Municipal authorities are empowered to provide cemeteries and crematoriums if they judge that it is appropriate to do so, but private undertakings will make their own assessment of the demands and the commercial risks. We have no evidence that, in the main, the arrangements work anything other than relatively well.
Charters are clearly significant. The Government, through their service first programme, have promoted the adoption of charters by all public services. Burial, cremation and other authorities are no exception. It is a matter for the relevant authorities to decide how to proceed with the work and what standards of service they can offer. They need to have regard, among other things, to the resources available to them.
The Government have not sought to set national standards for the burial and cremation industry pending their consideration of the standards promoted in two documents which have appeared in recent years: the charter for the bereaved, which was produced by the Institute for Burial and Cremation Administration, and the dead citizens charter which was produced by the National Funerals College. Neither document sets explicit standards for timeliness, although the National Funerals College encourages extended opening times for burial and cremation facilities. The college and the institute may want further to consider with their members whether such explicit standards should be set.
Nevertheless, seven local authority bereavement services in England and Wales achieved charter mark awards for the quality of their services in recent years; it is to be hoped that more such organisations will gain that standard. It is important that local bereavement services provide the most responsive service that they can to local people. It was interesting and encouraging to hear of my hon. Friend's experience in Carlisle on that matter.
On coroners and post mortems, it is important to realise that, sometimes, delays will be occasioned by the need for medico-legal investigation before the funeral can take place. Coroners are well aware of the effect of such delays, and of the importance that the Government attach


to the timely dispatch of business. Whenever possible, coroners try to release the bodies to the relatives as soon as possible after the conclusion of any necessary post mortem examination.
The model charter for the coroner service, launched last September, sets a target for the release of the body in most cases. Through that initiative, we are doing all that we can to encourage and support coroners to meet the highest standards. We are currently monitoring their progress on that matter and on the new procedures, introduced last year, to reduce delays when bodies are held pending serious criminal investigation. However, there is no room for complacency. We are not complacent about what needs to be done.
During the recent millennium period, we asked coroners about their arrangements. We suggested that they satisfy themselves that appropriate support services—from registrars, funeral directors and crematoriums and cemeteries—were in place. In the main, they achieved a relatively satisfactory standard.
However, lessons have been learned from their experience. We shall ensure that we build on that in the slightly different circumstances of the long holidays at Christmas and the new year in future. We are keen to explore ways of improving weekend and holiday provision of bereavement services. The Department of Health is currently examining the incidence of problems with a view to issuing appropriate guidance in due course.
My hon. Friend referred to the need for Government co-ordination. There is no one Minister or Department with responsibility for bereavement services in the

widest sense. Bearing in mind the wide range of services needed when a death occurs and during the weeks and months that follow, we need to ensure that, as far as is possible and appropriate, those services work in a way that is responsive to the Government's modernising initiative.
That initiative is committed to promoting improvements to public services in local government and in central Government. We have been examining the services required at a number of key stages in life, and how they can be made more accessible and intelligible to the public. That is part of the work of the bereavement service action team, which works with other organisations to find ways of improving the services provided for the bereaved.
As a result of the tragic incidents surrounding the murders committed by Dr. Harold Shipman, we have set up a review of death certification. That should assist in such matters.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important issues. I hope that he will not hesitate to send me details of cases on which he has specific concerns, so that they can be addressed. We must ensure that, as far as possible, wherever burial and cremation services are offered they meet the reasonable demands of the bereaved, and ease, rather than aggravate, their grief. By raising the matter tonight, my hon. Friend has undoubtedly assisted in that process; the House is grateful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.